Jump to content
John Crichton

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

Recommended Posts

I'll look forward to this! I really, really hope this will be an ESB/BTTF Part II/TDK sequel, not a POTC: DMC sequel. If the team can keep everything that worked in their first film and improve upon that in a new but stylistically congruous way, I'll be sold. :fouetaa:

And although I had absolutely no problem with the Star Wars influences in last year's film, I wouldn't mind a more classically Star Trek type of plot, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they continue with the Star Wars trend, since it seems that is what made it more appealing and popular :fouetaa:

No, that's what made the plebians like it.

and make more money therefore reviving the franchise from its death... do you want it to die again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they continue with the Star Wars trend, since it seems that is what made it more appealing and popular :fouetaa:

No, that's what made the plebians like it.

and make more money therefore reviving the franchise from its death... do you want it to die again?

I'd rather it die a respectful death than live on being what it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they continue with the Star Wars trend, since it seems that is what made it more appealing and popular :fouetaa:

No, that's what made the plebians like it.

and make more money therefore reviving the franchise from its death... do you want it to die again?

I'd rather it die a respectful death than live on being what it isn't.

Well said Charlie. We want Star Trek, not Star Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather it die a respectful death than live on being what it isn't.

It's been "what it isn't" since 1969. Nothing since, at least that I've seen, has completely captured the spirit of what Star Trek originally was. Some things have certainly come delightfully close (e.g. Star Trek IV), come drearily close (e.g. TMP), or forged delightfully new identities without compromising what matters most (e.g. TWOK, Star Trek XI)...and some things have just butchered the whole thing (e.g. every TV series after TOS). But very little of what I've seen - and I can't claim to have seen it all, mind you - is completely faithful to what Star Trek originally meant. All that really matters is whether or not the changes are acceptable to you.

Personally, I accept most of the changes in Star Trek XI, but as I said, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a more exploratory, cerebral sort of approach in the next film. But it'll have to keep some of that visceral excitement in order to avoid compromising Abram's vision, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather it die a respectful death than live on being what it isn't.

It's been "what it isn't" since 1969. Nothing since, at least that I've seen, has completely captured the spirit of what Star Trek originally was. Some things have certainly come delightfully close (e.g. Star Trek IV), come drearily close (e.g. TMP), or forged delightfully new identities without compromising what matters most (e.g. TWOK, Star Trek XI)...and some things have just butchered the whole thing (e.g. every TV series after TOS). But very little of what I've seen - and I can't claim to have seen it all, mind you - is completely faithful to what Star Trek originally meant. All that really matters is whether or not the changes are acceptable to you.

Personally, I accept most of the changes in Star Trek XI, but as I said, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a more exploratory, cerebral sort of approach in the next film. But it'll have to keep some of that visceral excitement in order to avoid compromising Abram's vision, as well.

Historically, Star Trek is, at its base, a vehicle for presenting social, political and environmental issues dressed up in SF tropes, mainly because many such issues were not allowed to be discussed openly on TV around the time it was created. Obviously, this expanded to additional what are now presented as SF cliches, but it's all been relatively faithful in most ways. Ironically, with it being the best movie, the film - while itself certainly being faithful to its source - that set it on ways somewhat outside of its original concept was KHAN. While TNG certainly expanded Star Trek's concepts, especially with the budget and effects available, it was certainly faithful in spirit and concept to TOS.

While I enjoyed Abrams film a lot, and I can forgive its tropes because it was doing the whole set-up thing, it did not always feel like Star Trek to me, and I would like this to change in the future. Visceral excitement is one thing that was certainly a welcome addition, but not at the expense of the intelligence and cerebral mentality you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, Star Trek is, at its base, a vehicle for presenting social, political and environmental issues dressed up in SF tropes, mainly because many such issues were not allowed to be discussed openly on TV around the time it was created.

That is definitely a big part of what made TOS what it was. But I would argue that that is only half of the "base." The other extremely important half is the way human nature is explored through the friendships and conflicts of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I don't mind Star Trek that abandons the sociopolitical allegory while nailing the human relationships, but Star Trek that delivers brilliant sociopolitical allegory while leaving the human relationships on the back burner annoys or downright amuses me with how little interest I have in it. You mentioned TNG being faithful in spirit and concept to TOS, but I'd argue that its character relationships are mind-numbingly dull. I get more out of

than an original episode. :)
While I enjoyed Abrams film a lot, and I can forgive its tropes because it was doing the whole set-up thing, it did not always feel like Star Trek to me, and I would like this to change in the future. Visceral excitement is one thing that was certainly a welcome addition, but not at the expense of the intelligence and cerebral mentality you mention.

I think we can agree on that. :fouetaa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they will work on a story that isn't full of holes large enough to drive the worlds largest dump truck through.

The cast is terrific so there is no worry there.

Won't have to worry about wasting any money on the score this time. Lesson learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised John hasn't already brought it up, but Klingons would be great. I'd like to see some good 'ol Birds of Prey on the big screen. With the timeline altered, it would be interesting to have the original crew end up meeting with later races such as the Ferengi.

I'll agree with those who want some more exploratory/introspective elements to the film. As much as I enjoyed the previous film, I can't help but think Orci and Kurtzman would do well to have an experienced sci-fi writer on their side to help with that. Then again, the unused message from Kirk was rather well done, so maybe they are capable of going a bit deeper.

The way Giacchino used his theme against the Courage theme in the End Credits is one of my favorite bits. The discussion on the score feature makes me think they're wanting to use it in the film proper, which I wouldn't mind at all. More thematic development would be good--and as the crew matures and the adventures go deeper, I'd like to hear a theme that's more specifically for the Enterprise and the searching of space and soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the deleted Klingon footage could figure into the next story. The Klingon Empire just suffered the humiliating loss of an entire squadron of warbirds at the hands of a rogue Romulan in possession of a powerful warship with a doomsday weapon. They know Vulcan is gone, and Earth almost suffered the same fate. Certainly they feel animosity towards the Star Empire and the Federation, not only for allowing such events to happen, but also for not giving them a crack at getting their hands on the weapon.

As cool as some soulful and introspective exploration could be, provided they don't encounter anything resembling V'Ger or Khan, I would like to see the Klingons throw everything they've got into causing nightmares for Kirk and crew.

Or we could see something completely different.

Plot holes are as much a part of the Star Trek chronology as boom-tzz is part of the John Williams discography. Shortcuts were made, coincidences were contrived to keep the far-fetched story going, but I'd rather have this Star Trek than no Star Trek. For those who want no Star Trek, go rent the old stuff on Netflix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points here. The one thing that comes to mind when I think of the next movie: wait at least one film longer before making a bunch of references to classic Trek--or even NextGen--storylines. The temptation may be to start throwing in all sorts of in-jokes and references to the original timeline, trying to get all the mileage they can out of the alternate reality thing. I think this'll prove a valuable tool in the future, but . . . give us just one movie that's about this cast facing a conflict of their own, having to come up with their own solutions, forge their own way, etc. Let them prove themselves as a crew on their own before forcing them to rehash new variations of old stories.

This strictly concerns the specific stories we know from the original series, films, and the like. As far as the broader business is concerned--facing Klingons 'n' stuff like that--well, that's all fine, of course. There are certain elements of setting that are important in establishing that this is still, in fact, a Star Trek enterprise (heh. . . . :) ).

On the other hand, they can't wait too long before dealing with some of those original stories if they want to use them. The further along the timeline proceeds, the more it will stray from the original. V'Ger may not make the voyage home, they might never meet up with Khan, peace with the Klingons may happen through an entirely different avenue . . . and by the time it reaches the 24th century and the TNG setting, things will likely have altered so much that it'll have to be the Next, Next Generation.

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised John hasn't already brought it up, but Klingons would be great.

Yes they would. I would be very happy with a Klingon movie.

I just hope they don't succumb to the temptation to do Khan, I don't think there's any need to try to top what's already been done with him. In fact I think it would be a great bit if some Klingons in the new movie came across the Botany Bay, saw it as a bunch of useless space debris, and blew it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they make the sequel as good as the first one I'll be happy.

For all the complaints about the plot, well there are just as many plot holes and head scratching moments in the other 10 Star Trek films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be extremely disappointed if they ever used Khan for the future of the franchise. Khan Singh is Ricardo Montalban, period. I know that Chris Pine and friends stepped into the legendary roles, but show some originality for once and leave this character alone.

The "Wrath of Khan" story works because "Space Seed" set it up. A hardened super-villain spends 20-some years plotting revenge against the man who he believed had wronged him, by marooning him on a paradise which soon becomes a wasteland, causing the death of his love, and never checking in to see if he's ok.

The jist of "Wrath of Khan" became the central theme for both Star Trek Nemesis and Star Trek XI, even down to the bad guy possessing a superweapon, so using it for XII is ad nauseum.

At this point in Abrams' alternate timeline, the Botany Bay is most likely just drifting through space, with Khan and his loyal followers sound asleep. The odds of Kirk finding them again are infinitesimally small because of how serious the timeline has skewed, so that if they do in fact meet again a la "Space Seed," some would cry plot hole, some would cry contrivance, and others would say it's the timeline correcting itself.

And Khan would sweet talk Kirk into letting him free to roam the ship, read the files, plot a coup, and hijack the Enterprise all over again. Been there, done that. A new alternate timeline Khan story would never approach a "Wrath of Khan"-scale of story until Kirk "wrongs" Khan, placing the seeds of vendetta into the genetic superman's head.

They shouldn't try to top the greatest tale in all of Star Trek history by remaking it point blank. This franchise should take the saga into a fresh new direction, not try to reinvent the wheel.

If Abrams and friends want to honor Star Trek II, I think the most they should show is Kirk with Carol Marcus, since they'd both be about the right age. That's it.

I agree with John, they should start the movie by showing some random alien encounter the BB and either wake them up themselves, blow it up, or drift into a sun. Then roll the intro credits with that out of the way, and tell a new story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still since the shitty director is doing it, and the uber awful writers are the same they would serve the series by trying to be original instead of destroying something sacred.

Mark, you're wrong that the plot holes in Star Trek are no worse than in the other ten, I'm not sure the plot holes in the other ten are even up to the challenge of competing with those in this latest film.

I don't understand why someone like datameister is so easy on this piece of shit and so hard on TNG, or why others are so easy on this film in general. It has all the problems of any of the prequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please give us an example? It's been so long since you've actually provided one, in favor of ranting up and down against the movie. And please don't use the S word in your treatise.

We know what this movie is clearly not.

ST XI has less problems than the SW Prequels because it is one thing they are not: fun. That makes Star Trek 2009 easily better than any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please give us an example? It's been so long since you've actually provided one, in favor of ranting up and down against the movie.

We know what this movie is clearly not.

I daresay that ST XI has less problems than the prequels because it is one thing they are not: fun. That makes it easily better than any of them.

I don't have to give any examples, it's quite clear watching the movie where there are holes.

but since you insist.

Little things. The bug eyed chick doctor in the beginning, wtf is that, is it one of those stupid pet pictures.

Oh look everyone is a slim model, strike a pose. Despite what people think the military is full of people of all sizes. The flares. Oh there goes another one. The look of the bridge, it looks like it was bought at a Sharper Image going out of business sale. The wanton chain of command. Checkov, I mean Wesley, no Wesley doesn't speak with a bad russian accent, Checkov. Fanboy sex jokes, grow up. Kirk is an ahole. Still bothered by the grand canyon of Iowa, blame global warming. Pointless set up moments, I'M JAMES TIBERIOUS KIRK, Jim Kirk would never have said that. James T perhaps but never the other. The Kobyashi Maru sequence played for a dumbed down audience when it could have been an awesome sequence. Why didn't Kirk, Sulu, and the Redshirt burn up on reentry..physics, we don't Kneed no stinking physics. Where is the Vulcan defense force? And since when is Vulcan just minutes away from Earth, especially when this Enterprise is slower and less technologically advanced as the real Kirk's 60's Enterprise. I've already pointed out my fanboy dislikes of the semiautomatice phasers instead of constant fire, and my dislike of the Battlestar Galactica method of warp. Scotty's beaming accident is so stupid. Why have see through tubes unless you have this sequence. Yes I stole this but I do love the line going through the internet that it looks like Willy Wonka designed the Enterprise. Why does Scotty have an ugnot as a sidekick? Where is the Enterprises' Chief Engineer.

Big things. Continuity, or is that a little thing. yeah I guess the villian's ear being pointed, being blunt, being pointed being blunt. Spock seeing Vulcan's demise from the other planet as if its in cinemascope. It should not have even been visable. Why if one tiny drop of this unexplained red matter can destroy a planet rather quickly, why doesn't the entire ball of it take far longer to suck in the romulan water treatment plant. In fact why did the Enterprise survive? Why is the warp core a series of cores? Ok I know it's a little point, but it's also a big point, where was the vulcan defense force.

Yes I've over thought this and destroyed any enjoyment of the film, which as I state has one redeeming quality and that is the cast was very enthusiastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are very good points, and I don't have very good defenses to them without sounding like a defiant fanboy, and because I don't think it's warranted. I suppose the convenient answer is that I overlook them for the sake of the movie, with as contrived and hooey as its story is, because it is a fun quick two hours that I've still only seen about three whole times.

Because the Star Trek continuum has been tackled by hundreds of writers over 40 years, it lacks any large sense of continuity. That's no granted excuse for this franchise to follow suit, but it's also strong enough to refuse to be shoehorned by the continuity scrappings of the previous installments for the sake of taking a new generation for a spin.

TMP paints Spock as a psychic Vulcan who can sense V'Ger's emotional agony from many light years away, while never suggesting it before or since, except for abstractions with Sybok and Tuvok. III became a mess in the editing room. Star Trek V takes a few in-movie hours to reach the galactic core, which is too condensed of a trip. Star Trek VI has enough consistency errors to fill a cargo bay, Generations has double that, and First Contact maybe double that. Nemesis thinks the audience is dumb.

Star Trek 2009 really does take a salad bar approach to Star Trek, and then airbrushes over the moles and ingrown hairs so it looks pretty. "Look at me, I'm shiny and slick" with the left hand, while the right hand snatches your wallet. Sleight of hand filmmaking as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I would like is an actual space exploration story.

Ever since the beginning, it's been "Our ongoing mission? To explore strange new worlds. To go where no man has gone before!"

But there hasn't been a single movie that actually DOES that. WHY do they keep repeating something as if it's meaningful,

ending TWO movies with the exact same speach by the exact same character, and still not have a single movie about it?

It makes no sense to me at all!

Oh... and I'd prefer to have not too much previous-story involvement in the next one.

No need for Khan or the whales or any of that stuff.

Or have Spock Prime mention those things and let them sort it out in a quick and efficient way.

If they do know what's coming, there's no need to be surprised and they can deal with it outside the movies, since it'd be unexciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no, it's awful. The Enterprise 2009's beer plant for an engine room makes as much sense as massive flashy looking vertical energy columns on Naboo for the climactic 2-on-1 saber duel.

Although to be fair, Engineering in the next film should be filmed in a Miller bottling plant.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe all their engineering principles are based on Doc Brown's steam technology. Maybe this Enterprise isn't powered by dilithium crystals but by coal, and the little ugnot that was Scotty's pal was actually his slave who stoked the coal units.

Mr. Scott, I need more power. Aye Sir. Shovel some more coal, and faster ya little bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark, you're wrong that the plot holes in Star Trek are no worse than in the other ten, I'm not sure the plot holes in the other ten are even up to the challenge of competing with those in this latest film.

Actually, he's not wrong. Plot holes abound in even the best of the Star Trek films. This one may be no exception (although easily half of the items on your list weren't "plot holes" at all, simply stylistic choices you didn't care for), but there's nothing in the new film that's outrageously more far-fetched than any of the others--save perhaps Star Trek II, which had the most internal integrity when it came to the storyline and continuity. I would say rather that the new film doesn't come close to competing with the enormous gaps in, say, Star Trek V or Star Trek: Generations (the latter of which, though I enjoyed it at the time, is jaw-dropping in its stupidity).

Maybe all their engineering principles are based on Doc Brown's steam technology.

;)

"Warp five, Mr. Scott."

"Aye, sir! Red logs on the ready line, boys!"

- Uni

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more the characterisation that I have issue with more than any real plot holes. Spock is great for most of the time, but then does things like abandoning Kirk to the ice planet and snogging Uhura. And then Kirk taking command by what he does to Spock (and worse, what Spock tells him to do to Spock), that just seemed really out of order. And the humour. I have issues with everyone making jokes every two minutes. It's fun sometimes, but a lot of times is done at the expense of any real characterisation.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

<cracks knuckles> Okie dokie...

Little things. The bug eyed chick doctor in the beginning, wtf is that, is it one of those stupid pet pictures.

Oversaturation of movies with CGI effects. You have to show aliens in a sci-fi movie to establish the setting, because too many humans makes you wonder where you are. Like what the SW Cantina did with puppets.

Oh look everyone is a slim model, strike a pose. Despite what people think the military is full of people of all sizes.

The current military perhaps. The movie does have a sexiness that exceeds previous Star Trek outings, but this is also a future where obesity is probably a treatable medical condition. Which doesn't explain Kirk's paunch or Picard's baldness, but I digress.

The flares. Oh there goes another one. The look of the bridge, it looks like it was bought at a Sharper Image going out of business sale.

Artistic license. They got old, but I think I also got used to them.

The wanton chain of command.

Kirk's method of deposing Spock as captain was rather crude, and is painful to watch in retrospect. He's lucky that Spock is half Vulcan and can let bye gones be bye gones, because if he stooped that low against a human (implying lack of a mother's love), that human would not be so quick to forgive and forget, nor would be as open to "a friendship that will define you both." And certainly Kirk's method of explaining the trap they were all walking into completely bypassed any sense of command. They created these characters with arbitrary ranks without any sense of how they should fit together, but such is the plot the writers defined for the story. It's weak.

Checkov, I mean Wesley, no Wesley doesn't speak with a bad russian accent, Checkov.

He did overdo it with the Russian accent just to make the Victor Wictor radio call sign joke.

Fanboy sex jokes, grow up.

It's the 21st century, it's unfortunately become unavoidable.

Kirk is an ahole.

&

Pointless set up moments, I'M JAMES TIBERIOUS KIRK, Jim Kirk would never have said that. James T perhaps but never the other.

He didn't have a strong father figure to whoop his ass. His stepfather is all talk and no discipline. Kirk starts out an ahole to mature into something more responsible by movie's end, it's called character growth.

Still bothered by the grand canyon of Iowa, blame global warming.

It's a quarry, not a canyon. Rocks, metal, coal, something of material importance was underground. Hence the fence, to keep people and vehicles at a safe distance.

The Kobyashi Maru sequence played for a dumbed down audience when it could have been an awesome sequence.

It shows Kirk as super cocky and headstrong. It was his third attempt, let him at least have some fun. The "target" audience for the movie deserved some exposition for the test, and didn't grow up with TWOK like the Trekkies.

Why didn't Kirk, Sulu, and the Redshirt burn up on reentry..physics, we don't Kneed no stinking physics.

Their suits must be made of a material comparable to a shuttlecraft. If explaining the KM test is dumbing down the movie, then saying "a shuttlecraft will protect you from the heat of re-entry" is really dumbing it down. If 1960s astronauts got the Apollo capsule back down using ceramics, certainly by the 23rd century, scientists found a way to make it fashionable.

Where is the Vulcan defense force?

Waporized. Or the same reason the Enterprise is always the only ship in the quadrant/area to save the day: dramatic tension.

And since when is Vulcan just minutes away from Earth, especially when this Enterprise is slower and less technologically advanced as the real Kirk's 60's Enterprise.

First of all, this Enterprise is larger and more technologically advanced by way of technical readouts of the future Narada gained by the Kelvin's scans in the first five minutes of the movie, which have changed everything in Star Trek technology, including where the ship was built. But since we can't accurately line the ships up next to each other with little figures for people in a 1:1 scale manner, such comparisons are silly.

Minutes away? Dramatic compression of time for the sake of advancing the plot. I suppose a time elapsed clock would have negated the plot hole, but doesn't Kirk pass out from the sedative? How long is he out before he wakes up with swollen hands, and then spends several minutes racing around and explaining his theory? This is never stated, and can relate movie-minutes to real-world-minutes.

I've already pointed out my fanboy dislikes of the semiautomatice phasers instead of constant fire, and my dislike of the Battlestar Galactica method of warp.

Artistic license. Looks cool. Future tech.

Scotty's beaming accident is so stupid. Why have see through tubes unless you have this sequence.

Agreed. Scotty was wasted on comedic relief, hence his debut late in the movie. The beaming accident was also unnecessary because it was repeated again when Kirk and Spock beam into a busy part of the Narada.

Yes I stole this but I do love the line going through the internet that it looks like Willy Wonka designed the Enterprise.

It's hard to imagine this NCC-1701 as a real starship, where space is a commodity, and not combination a factory and mega-mall.

Why does Scotty have an ugnot as a sidekick?

More comedic relief; looks like they recycled the mask of the aliens where they found B-4.

Where is the Enterprises' Chief Engineer.

Olson? He was the redshirt who jumped with Kirk and Sulu. Red shirt. Get it?

Big things. Continuity, or is that a little thing. yeah I guess the villian's ear being pointed, being blunt, being pointed being blunt.

Lazy filmmaking and editing. They pay continuity people to watch that kind of thing. It's like the chess board in Ace Ventura.

Spock seeing Vulcan's demise from the other planet as if its in cinemascope. It should not have even been visable.

Agreed. Without a telescope for Spock, this was impossible. Even for dramatic license, Vulcan and that planet would not be as close as Endor and the Death Star II, unless that's what Abrams was going for. I'll give you this as a plot hole only so that Spock Prime meets Kirk, so they can meet plot hole Scotty the Clown. If Nero had been smart, he would have kept Spock Prime close so he couldn't cause any problems. Also, since Nero knows his history (future?), he would remember Spock is half human. Watching Earth get destroyed as well would be like two daggers through his heart, rather than just watching Vulcan eat it. Guess the filmmakers overlooked that one.

Why if one tiny drop of this unexplained red matter can destroy a planet rather quickly, why doesn't the entire ball of it take far longer to suck in the romulan water treatment plant. In fact why did the Enterprise survive?

Silly physics and dramatic license. The film doesn't state how large of a black hole is created by that one drop of red matter (and is "size" of a black hole relevant?). Is it on a timer? Does it take a proportionally sized mass to close the black hole? If the Vulcan black hole is not closed, then the end of the movie black hole should have eaten the whole galaxy by now. I would surmise that somehow the Narada and Enterprise's engines keep them safe for a while, but even they tire out. I don't buy that a warp core explosion could collapse a black hole many million times larger than that which swallowed a planet.

Why is the warp core a series of cores?

That wasn't the warp core, it was all of the water beer tanks.

Ok I know it's a little point, but it's also a big point, where was the vulcan defense force.

Repeated, but let's assume that in the time it takes to destroy 46 Klingon warbirds in deep space, one of them manages to get off a distress signal. I will assume the VDF was less than 46 ships, and also assume they would not launch a distress signal if their home base on Vulcan was monitoring their status. The planet launched the distress call to Starfleet when the last VDF ship was destroyed by Nero. This is not mentioned, but logically it does not have to be.

Yes I've over thought this and destroyed any enjoyment of the film, which as I state has one redeeming quality and that is the cast was very enthusiastic.

The difference is that I can over analyze the movie, too, but still enjoy it. I guess I enjoy it because I want to.

It's like eating a trout. Can you eat a trout for all the tiny white bones that gag you in the throat if you try to eat it quickly? Or do you say there's bones in trout so you won't bother? To each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spock seeing Vulcan's demise from the other planet as if its in cinemascope. It should not have even been visable.

Agreed. Without a telescope for Spock, this was impossible. Even for dramatic license, Vulcan and that planet would not be as close as Endor and the Death Star II, unless that's what Abrams was going for. I'll give you this as a plot hole only so that Spock Prime meets Kirk, so they can meet plot hole Scotty the Clown. If Nero had been smart, he would have kept Spock Prime close so he couldn't cause any problems. Also, since Nero knows his history (future?), he would remember Spock is half human. Watching Earth get destroyed as well would be like two daggers through his heart, rather than just watching Vulcan eat it. Guess the filmmakers overlooked that one.

In Abrahams (and the writers) defense. The original cut of Star Trek TPM did show a planet or moon in very close proximity to Vulcan.

So there is definatly a precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, the precedent is there.

Delta Vega in the film is a reference to an unrelated planet from the TOS episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before". In an interview with TrekMovie.com:

"For the Trek fans, this film includes many little references. For example you have Kirk dropped off on the planet Delta Vega, which was seen in second Star Trek pilot. It is a cool reference, but didn’t you also fudge canon by ignoring that Delta Vega was way out next to the galactic barrier."

Writer Roberto Orci: True. Yeah we did. We moved the planet to suit our purposes. The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an Easter egg, than a new name with no importance.

And from Memory Alpha:

According to Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which ambassador Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be 'impressionistic for a general audience.' He thought of Delta Vega as being in an orbit close to Vulcan's, and that the original idea -- having Spock view the planet's destruction through a telescope or some other device -- '[wasn't] very cinematic.' [2]

Delta Vega is an icy Class M planet in the Vulcan system. Its orbit carried it near enough to Vulcan that the other planet could be seen from Delta Vega's surface.

Maybe there are two planets with the same name, like how city names are recycled in various states and countries. It doesn't have to be the original Delta Vega.

I just thought in the movie that the Enterprise traveled for several minutes a great distance from Vulcan towards the Laurentian system before they jettisoned Kirk onto the icy planet. If that planet was close enough to Vulcan to view it from below, they made a big U-turn.

Perhaps we are meant to think that Spock did view the demise from a telescope, or could actually see it from his viewpoint. At any rate, the replay is in his mind's eye. Maybe if he's psychic enough to "hear" V'Ger, he can hear six billion voices crying out in panic and then suddenly were silenced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

If so I think its a shame, since the Abrams Trek movie was clearly very good, as I remember it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

If so I think its a shame, since the Abrams' Trek movie was clearly very good, as I remember it.

I think it's maybe a split, possibly 60/40 in favour. I like it very much and I find it very fun, and it's not a bad movie, but I do have issues with it. But I'm not against a sequel, I'd just like some things tightened up a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

I can't speak for "most", but I know I liked it quite a bit, particularly after seeing it one or two more times. Like all films, it has flaws. And in greater number than is sometimes the case. But they weren't enough to prevent me from enjoying the film quite a bit. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

No, I think it's a vocal minority drowning out the majority. I certainly still love it.

We could always have a poll. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since the last Trek movie screened, but am I right or wrong in thinking that most here now thinks its a load of shite?

If so I think its a shame, since the Abrams Trek movie was clearly very good, as I remember it.

I loved it when I watched, of course, it's the only Star Trek I've ever seen, so I had no expectations and I do not have any knowledge to find any contradictions or mischaracterizations. Been meaning to get it on Blu-Ray but it's too expensive for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×