Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Post-Release Thread
#71

I will gladly eat crow if this film ends up being great.  But looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and all that...

Reply
#72
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlenomad View Post

So, you've seen it?  The "plot magic" defies any basic semblance of science and renders previous incarnations of Khan moronic?  That's a pretty strong statement.  Are you sure you want to go with that?  Because the way I see it, even if this movie disappoints, Khan is f---ing gold.  There is no giant dump this movie can take that will tarnish that character, nor the classic performances that brought him to life.  Get a grip.

And I stand by my comparison of James T. Kirk to Indiana Jones, James Bond, Han Solo, even freaking Superman.  Kirk is Trek's hero that can't be kept down.

Unless Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore are writing.  Let's face it, if you're going to give the middle finger to some Trek writers, may as well start with those two.

No what I was saying is that it retroactively makes Kahn literally stupid, because if a couple of drops of his blood can revive a man who's died of radiation poisoning then why the hell did his whole population of genetic superman die on Ceti Alpha VI?

Also, I think you have a fundamental misinterpretation of Kirk. He's the hero of Trek, but he's always been fundamentally human and fallible. If he succeeds it's because of his willingness to think outside the box, to manipulate the parameters. The whole point of WoK was that even manipulating the parameters can't always give you an absolute victory without sacrifice. And yes, though they did bring Spock back, it took risks, it had consequences, it had lasting repurcussions for the major characters. In this one, apparently all it takes is injecting someone with Khanverines healing factor.

Reply
#73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood View Post

 And yes, though they did bring Spock back, it took risks, it had consequences, it had lasting repurcussions for the major characters.

Bear in mind, this wasn't the plan.  Nimoy had no intention of coming back as Spock at the time that they filmed WoK.  It was only afterwards, when he saw the finished film and got enthusiastic about Trek again, that he relented and was willing to come back.  Even then, his return was contingent upon getting the directing gig for STAR TREK III.

Reply
#74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

Bear in mind, this wasn't the plan.  Nimoy had no intention of coming back as Spock at the time that they filmed WoK.  It was only afterwards, when he saw the finished film and got enthusiastic about Trek again, that he relented and was willing to come back.  Even then, his return was contingent upon getting the directing gig for STAR TREK III.

Good point.

Reply
#75

As someone who was a kid when WRATH OF KHAN was in theaters, Spock's death was a huge deal.

Reply
#76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

Bear in mind, this wasn't the plan.  Nimoy had no intention of coming back as Spock at the time that they filmed WoK.  It was only afterwards, when he saw the finished film and got enthusiastic about Trek again, that he relented and was willing to come back.  Even then, his return was contingent upon getting the directing gig for STAR TREK III.

Right, but that reinforces my point, after a fashion. Spock's death was conceived as a permanent ramification, and when the decision was made to bring him back it, wasn't handwaved. They made it count. This development, on a purely thematic level, regardless of any level of execution that might mystify the audience into thinking otherwise, is the absolute antithesis of that: cheap dramatics meant to make the inevitable happy ending seem happier. Making it seem like there are stakes, when really the stakes don't matter.

Reply
#77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood View Post

Right, but that reinforces my point, after a fashion. Spock's death was conceived as a permanent ramification, and when the decision was made to bring him back it, wasn't handwaved. They made it count. This development, on a purely thematic level, regardless of any level of execution that might mystify the audience into thinking otherwise, is the absolute antithesis of that: cheap dramatics meant to make the inevitable happy ending seem happier. Making it seem like there are stakes, when really the stakes don't matter.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.  My point is that the death was originally intended to be permanent.  When the decision was made to bring Spock back, it was given an entire movie to play out and have some sort of emotional impact on the characters and on the audience.  His return had major consequences, too: the death of Kirk's son, the destruction of the Enterprise, and the destruction of Kirk's career as a Starfleet officer.  This is how it SHOULD have been handled.

My hope is that the new one handles all of this in a way that has impact.

Reply
#78

Yeah, best of luck with that.

Reply
#79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Yeah, best of luck with that.

Notice that I said 'hope'.

Reply
#80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

My hope is that the new one handles all of this in a way that has impact.

It will... in 60 seconds!

This is one of the many problems you get in this day and age when sequels are all but a given and write you in a corner before you've even laid pencil to paper.

Reply
#81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

It will... in 60 seconds!

This is one of the many problems you get in this day and age when sequels are all but a given and write you in a corner before you've even laid pencil to paper.

Actually the sequels should've given them more balls to follow through on Kirk's demise.  In the 3rd nu Trek they could simply do some more time warping shit and bring back Kirk from another timeline.

Reply
#82

That would require this trio of writers to own said balls in the first place. Instead, they just write them into scenes featuring giant robots.

Reply
#83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

It's interesting that you brought up cartoonish, action franchises...kind of shows what Star Trek has become.  In real Trek, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  Characters didn't die and then come back to life almost immediately, because Trek was never a cartoon.  And besides Avengers, none of those other characters actually died.  There is a difference between the threat of death (danger) and actual death (finality).

In "real Trek?"  It doesn't get any more real than ST: TOS, which included episodes where things happen like Spock dramatically going blind and then at the last minute revealing Vulcans have an "inner eyelid" to protect them from bright light.  Or there was the episode where NOMAD brain-wiped Uhura and she was functionally illiterate at the end, but then in her next appearance she was back to normal.  Chekov fucking bought the farm in Spectre of the Gun, only to be instantly okay at the end.  There are probably countless other examples that I've forgotten.

Star Trek is no stranger to the Deus ex machina.  Should it be used in the way these ST:ID spoilers have described?  Not sure.  Haven't yet seen the movie, and I don't know if the moment is earned in context.  But the notion that Star Trek is above this kind of thing is misguided.

Reply
#84

I think I've posted enough of my thoughts pre-screening.  I'm willing to give this a movie a chance and not immediately piss on it because of **** returning or a main character being saved from death.  See you all later.

Reply
#85

I want fun, banter, and excitement from this movie.  Maybe a sequence of really well played emotion.  Anything plot related is BOUND to be really stupid if the first film is any indication, and I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch.

Reply
#86

You wear panties?

Reply
#87

You don't?

Reply
#88
A[quote name="littlenomad" url="/community/t/147679/star-trek-into-darkness-post-release-thread/50#post_3501632"]In "real Trek?"  It doesn't get any more real than ST: TOS, which included episodes where things happen like Spock dramatically going blind and then at the last minute revealing Vulcans have an "inner eyelid" to protect them from bright light.  Or there was the episode where NOMAD brain-wiped Uhura and she was functionally illiterate at the end, but then in her next appearance she was back to normal.  Chekov fucking bought the farm in Spectre of the Gun, only to be instantly okay at the end.  There are probably countless other examples that I've forgotten.

Star Trek is no stranger to the Deus ex machina.  Should it be used in the way these ST:ID spoilers have described?  Not sure.  Haven't yet seen the movie, and I don't know if the moment is earned in context.  But the notion that Star Trek is above this kind of thing is misguided.[/quote]
You are right that Trek has gotten up to some stupid shit in prior incarnations. But then, it was rightfully excoriated when it did it then (the nicest thing I've ever heard people say about, say, "Spock's Brain" is that it was less stupid in the original script, and I've yet to meet a person with a single kind word for Star Trek V,) so I don't see why this bullshit should get a pass. And in any case, the movie that Star Trek Impotent Death is directly inviting comparisons to was way, way, way the hell above such shenanigans, having never intended to bring back Spock in the first place - which is why it had the impact it did, which is why they felt that it deserved a whole sequel movie devoted to bring Spock back in a way that wasn't cheap and lazy, which is why it didn't feel like a bullshit cop-out, which was Ambler's larger point that you ignored. Star Trek Ignoring Dividers, by this account, pulls its punch before the end credits, because they never intended to kill Kirk for real, they just wanted a late-game OMG SHOCK!!! moment because that's part of the rollercoaster formula. It's not going to hold any kind of weight because it was never intended to be weighty.
Reply
#89

What he said.

Reply
#90

Destroying Vulcan and killing Spock's mom is one thing, as neither got very much face time in the post-TOS incarnation of the Trek universe. In other words, you can still watch the old Trek shows/movies and be content in the knowledge that 99.999% of what you're seeing probably still happened, hence these new movies still bear some relationship to what came before (or after, or... whatever). But this is altering a fundamental event in the Trek canon - essentially the events of Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock are being wiped from the continuity entirely. Which is fine, I guess, insofar as this new series of movies takes place in an "alternate timeline" or what have you.

But the thing is... the more changes like this they make, the farther apart those timelines get, and the less efficacy these movies have as prequels, even on a spiritual level. We're supposed to be witnessing the formation of these iconic relationships - Kirk/Spock, Spock and McCoy, and so on. But the resonance of that, and the reason those relationships and characters are so iconic, is largely based on our knowledge of those characters and relationships, which comes from watching (or, in my own case as far as TOS is concerned, having a passing familiarity with) all those previous television episodes and movies. Those same episodes and movies that are being increasingly invalidated every time they pull a timeline-skewering stunt like this.

To put it another way - if the point of watching a prequel is not only to fill in blanks and address unanswered questions (how Kirk and Spock first met, etc.), but to see earlier parts of the story unfold in light of later parts that we've already seen, how much impact does that have if they reserve the right to throw out those later parts of the story as it suits them? Yes, the first Trek was a fun romp, and yes, I'm sure this one will be too. But I shouldn't have to turn my brain off to enjoy a Trek movie. I've got the Transformers movies for that.

Reply
#91

Does Cumberbatch's character survive?

Reply
#92

I actually liked this more than the first Trek. Old Trek fans will probably hate it but damn it is good entertainment. It employs as many stupid plot contrievances as the first one, but the sheer spectacle and the great chemistry of the cast more than make up for these. I would say that this ensemble is so good that you have a bunch of 5 year olds write it (maybe marginally worse than the current trio) and you would still have a great time in the theater watching the movie.

I thought the whole Khan thing worked fine, and the Kirk incident seemed perfectly plausible in the universe that this movie establishes. But as someone who never really cared for the old Trek movies, I had no baggage in that regard. But I'm sure Trekkies will lose their shit.

Reply
#93
ARegarding the timeline thing, I really do not care whether they diverge from it or get closer. I actually wish the last film was a straight up reboot with no ties to the original timeline and did things on its own accord, whether that aligned with the original timeline or not. Rehashing storylines wouldn't be my first choice, but if they want to I'd like them to be a little more inventive and give them a nice twist. I'd love to take premises that didn't work (Sybok) and refine them in a way that will effect the characters and tell a damn good story that feels like Star Trek. Mess with the timeline all you want. What matters to me most is how close they are to the spirit of TOS and what it was about. Abrams and co lacking an understanding of the DNA of Trek for me is more damaging than a lazy rehashing of a popular story.
Reply
#94

Embargo has been lifted. Beaks is not a fan. His spoiler-filled review:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62238

Reply
#95
A
Mr. Beaks Wrote:It’s so misguided that, frankly, it makes STAR TREK ’09 look like a lightning-in-a-bottle accident.
Gee. Wonder how that could be.
Reply
#96

That review makes me sad.  Sad because I can't convince myself that's NOT how I'm going to feel about the movie.

Reply
#97

Yup, Star Trek in name only now...

Reply
#98
AExpectations are sub-basement level.
Reply
#99

I'm expecting the awful, dull grind that was Nemesis.

Reply

Phew.  I was going to see this at the movies this week (fucking Trailer Fraud), then saw the first one (2009's Trek), didn't like it and then spoiled the shit out of myself here.

The Warehouse has The Wrath of Khan on sale for $15.  A ticket to see this new one is $15.

Back to the Warehouse it is then Smile

Reply
AWould love to see THE WRATH OF KHAN on the big screen.
Reply
AI've seen it on the big screen twice. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Stockslivevan!
Reply

I saw it twice at the movies when it came out when I was 9.

I don;t think I've seen it since, but it left a very lasting impression on me (ear things - damn)

Reply
AAndy & Bradito: better than you all.
Reply
AIn not worthy, I'm not worthy!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)