Jump to content

Star Trek Into Darkness (The Big Bad Star Trek (X)II Thread)


John Crichton

Recommended Posts

UNI, In replying to Wojo, I answered with all the problems I have with the film, not just plot holes. But all the problems I have are legit and to this point no one has tried to defend them because most are indefensable.

Fair enough . . . though I do wonder what you mean by "legit." Legitimate in the sense that you're entitled to your opinion, certainly; but legit in the sense that they're gospel truth? I don't think so. You did bring up several very accurate plot problems with the movie, which I (along with Wojo) agree with. But the reason several of the others are "indefensible" isn't because they can't be defended, but rather because there's no need to defend them, any more than there's a need to defend Klingons having ridges on their foreheads in every iteration after TOS. It's artistic choice, that's all. If you don't like it, you're welcome to express your (legitimate!) feelings, but no one really needs to take the time to back up the reason they happened to like it.

And I still stand by my own (legitimate? Yes!) assertion that it's still a better movie than Star Trek V could ever be, if for no other reason than I enjoyed the ride this time, where as The Final Frontier just made me feel all terrible inside.

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the film more than the first, third, and fifth films. TWOK is...TWOK, and thus pretty difficult to beat in terms of Star Trek filmdom, and I definitely like the fourth film as well. It's harder for me to judge the sixth film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNI, In replying to Wojo, I answered with all the problems I have with the film, not just plot holes. But all the problems I have are legit and to this point no one has tried to defend them because most are indefensable.

Fair enough . . . though I do wonder what you mean by "legit." Legitimate in the sense that you're entitled to your opinion, certainly; but legit in the sense that they're gospel truth? I don't think so. You did bring up several very accurate plot problems with the movie, which I (along with Wojo) agree with. But the reason several of the others are "indefensible" isn't because they can't be defended, but rather because there's no need to defend them, any more than there's a need to defend Klingons having ridges on their foreheads in every iteration after TOS. It's artistic choice, that's all. If you don't like it, you're welcome to express your (legitimate!) feelings, but no one really needs to take the time to back up the reason they happened to like it.

And I still stand by my own (legitimate? Yes!) assertion that it's still a better movie than Star Trek V could ever be, if for no other reason than I enjoyed the ride this time, where as The Final Frontier just made me feel all terrible inside.

- Uni

the flaw in your argument is that no one is backing up most of those, they simply choose to ignore them. It's not like anyone is saying I like Star Trek because it has these gaffs. I like Star Trek because Spock see's Vulcan collapse on itself from impossible distances. btw look back and see that I gave "MY" reasons, not yours, or Wojo's, or Drax, or Data.., just "my" reasons, certainly not gospel as you said.

And I'm in "legitimate" agreement with you that it is a better movie than Star Trek V, though I feel had that film had a substantially larger budget and longer pre-production through post production that this film had it might well have been a "legitimately" better film. It's score (V) is "legitimately" better than (XI) in any universe, and that my friend is "gospel". :lol::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's score (V) is "legitimately" better than (XI) in any universe, and that my friend is "gospel". ;) :cool:

Amen . . . preach it, brother! :cool:

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a movie.

wow, what an intelligent thing to say, It's a movie.

I think we get that. But this is a site to discuss film music, films and other aspects of films.

Is your comment meant to minimize the importance or value of movies?

Others here have used that same argument with failing results.

They say it's not life or death. Maybe and maybe not but anything that cost as much as movies do, are an economics all there own, an it is the livelyhood of these people. So in essense it is life. It is the work, the craft of many people. It's the love of more than just a few. It is a passion.

unless we're talking about you, and then it's just a movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key word is passion. Free Willy was also just a movie. Where are its 75 pages of rambling yet passionate discussion?

well you weren't here back in 93 when we had page after page of discussion on the merits of Free Willy, you wouldn't believe the Passion that film evoked back then. Oh and the wonderful threads back then about which was better Jurassic Park or Schindler's List, and our John Wins thread, what a classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, in '93 I was in sixth grade, the school didn't have the internet, and even my house, while our computer had a modem, to use the free AOL disks that arrived in the mail would have required us to make a long distance call to a different exchange, which violates the idea of "free internet."

And in '93 I don't think I knew who John Williams was, other than a concert piece the high school band played that I really liked.

Otherwise, I would have been here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So original sin is being born not knowing who John Williams is? I wasn't baptized until I got my Star Wars Anthology.

I'm lucky I didn't die before then. Can you imagine burning in film composer hell for eternity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this week I'm going to redraw the new Enterprise design a tad bit differently. While I love the mesh of the original TOS enterprise and the refit, what I plan to do mostly do is just re-draw the neck and engineering hull to make it more proportion to the rest of the ship. That's been my only beef with the new design of the ship is that the engineering section just doesn't quite look right.

I'll be drawing the starboard, for, aft, ventral and vertical views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I loved the film as you all know I have to agree seeing Engineering the way it did made me shake my head. It didn't even look like an Engine room...well maybe it did from a steamship but come on this is a Starship, not a steamship.
Working on actual big ships myself, I can confirm this.

If anything, it does look like the engine room of a steamship, not like a modern ship in any way, shape or form.

Also, the quick promotion of Kirk is ludicrous beyond belief.

From just-graduated officer to captain of the fleet's flagship in one week? You kidding me?

It'll take me maybe two years to even go from Fourth Officer to Third Officer.

And that would be quick.

I'd imagine that after the events of Star Trek XI,

at the most, Kirk might be promoted one rank and put on the Enterprise.

OR, if he's REALLY lucky, be assigned as captain to one of the smaller ships in the fleet.

Of course I understand we just plain want to see Kirk as captain of the Enterprise,

so we'd better get that over with and get everyone in their respective seats.

I did like the movie, but it did seem very much like a "setting up" kind of movie.

Now that that's out of the way, I hope they can actually have these characters do what they're supposed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Well, I'll certainly be sad not to see him deliver another Spock performance...but he did a truly admirable job in Star Trek XI, and I think it was an appropriate send-off for his performance of the character. Makes more sense to let Zachary Quinto have his space, anyway, as Mr. Nimoy said in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wish he'd done Big Bang, and really then he could retire with two consecutive success, Fringe and Big Bang. it would get that bad taste out from star trek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

There was a story about that on AICN yesterday too, I find it dubious. I can see someone like Harry Mudd making a driveby cameo, but not a major appearance. I could always be wrong, though.

But I want a Klingon movie, dammit! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say the new movie should open up with a Klingon ship coming across a piece of space debris and blowing it to pieces just for the hell of it, and afterward we see a scarred chunk that says "Botany Bay".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;) That would be so bad, but it'd be amusing.

I suppose I'm glad Khan (purportedly) won't be in the new film. Some things are better just left alone. "Space Seed" and TWOK gave us enough Khan. Good episode and great film, but that doesn't mean we need to see him again. I'll be curious to see who the central villain is instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true I'm leaning toward the Talosians first, and Gary Mitchell next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust in the script writers enough to do any of these "villians" credit. Nero was so week, even moreso than the previous better "romulan" villan. Harry Mudd isn't a menacing villain but he is a comedic one. Gary Mitchell could be a souless bastard of major proportions. Trelane was a child, and the Horta was a rock, Charlie Brown gets a rock each Halloween, it's not a villain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nero may have been sympathetic in that he was trying to avenge his wife, but during the span of "20 years later," he went crazy and became irrational and impossible to deal with. Weak or not, he was in possession of an unbeatable superweapon. That made him dangerous.

Trelane would make an interesting villain given a large SFX budget, but since the creation of Peter David's excellent "Q-Squared" novel (one of only five or six Star Trek books that I've ever read), it's widely accepted by some fanboys that Trelane was a Q.

Blah blah blah, Q is Captain Picard's personal foil. DS9 and Voyager used him to bait viewers, and even Enterprise didn't want to muck up the timeline with him 200 years before Picard. I know Star Trek XII is an alternate prequel reality, but still. Isn't De Lancie too old to play an ageless omnipotent? Since I don't want to see Q ruined in a movie, I don't want to see Trelane (or his superior parents) or I'd ask where's Q.

The Doomsday Machine should be roaming the quadrant.

I've really got to wonder, did any of Kang, Kor, and Koloth die when Nero blew up those 47 Klingon warbirds?

I can't really see the Talosians as being "bad guys" on a scale worthy of the next film. Not the architects of a crime, anyways. But then again, I want a "threaten the galaxy" villain that can present a Federation vs. Somebody war, not a more personal, "threaten one or two characters" villain (Khan was both by way of Genesis). The Talosians are stuck beneath the surface of a barren planet without technology, so they can't leave on their own. They don't want to, they just want people for breeding stock to live in their illusions. Their cause is not entirely without merit, since they are what's left of a nuclear holocaust that fried their world; they're doing the best they can, and indeed, "The Menagerie" painted them in a more sympathetic light as they helped Captain Pike. Was his wheelchair in Star Trek XI a dropped hint of foreshadowing or just a meaningless way to fill the movie with more TOS lore?

Now if someone removed the Talosians from Talos IV, and presented them with ships and armies and planets to tinker with, or made them the slaves of a more diabolical schemer, then they could be dangerous.

Otherwise, General Order 7 worked pretty well for 120+ years to keep Talos IV out of the minds of everyone in Star Trek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if they're going to avoid Khan, the villain of the most or second-most universally acclaimed TOS film, they have to avoid the villain of the most or second-most universally panned TOS film even more.

Omnipotence runs amok in TOS. Gary Mitchell. Trelane. Plato's stepchildren. The Orions. Aliens like these blur the lines between science fiction and space fantasy if a superior being can make something appear out of nothingness, rather than through some legitimate process (and no, I don't mean "beaming").

Gary-Mitchell-cat.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've borrowed seasons 1 and 2 of TOS on Blu from a friend and watched them all the way through, the only thing that annoys me nearly as much as all the God-like aliens are all the inexplicable parallel Earths, mostly in season 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't need to really be god like people in the movies...but you know I was thinking it maybe Koloth. I remember with the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations", Jadzia told Sisko that she remembered Koloth telling Kurzon (Jadzia's previous host) that he (Koloth) traded insults with Kirk on a Space Station near the (Federation/Klingon) border. However, he (Koloth) had always regretted never meeting James Kirk in battle. If memory serves me right, Kirk did meet Kor and Kang in battle at one point during the original series but never Koloth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want anything we've seen before. New life, new civilisations - I want this, not simply going back to TOS again. I'd like something that escapes the TWOK mode as I'm a little tired of that in Trek. Not that I trust Orci and Kurtzman to come up with something particularly good and original, but I just want to see something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could definitely see it being Gary Mitchell. Makes it a more personal, emotional storyline for Kirk, which is kinda what they're going for in the Abramsverse it seems.

Of course, the quote could be a huge smokescreen and it's none of them. :fouetaa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.