The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Star Trek: 2 Trek 2 Furious

Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
edited April 2015 in Debate and/or Discourse
JJ-Abrams-010.jpg

JJ Abrams is leaving Trek. With two movies under his belt, Star Trek and Into Darkness, the franchise was rebooted (kind of) with a new universe where Kirk is young, Spock is dating Uhura and Robocop is a Starfleet admiral. Abrams is a polarizing figure to Trek fans that haven't liked what he's done and many who do. Where does Trek go from here? Roberto Orci. You may have heard his name, he's written movies with his partner Alex Kurtzman. They wrote Abrams Trek's, Amazing Spider-man 2 and Michael Bay's Transformers trilogy. Now he's in the director's chair and Trek fandom is turning its attention to him, waiting to see what he'll do with the franchise now Abrams has moved onto Star Wars: Episode VII.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3-1201180140/

MV5BNTQzOTg1Nzk2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDU3NjQxMw@@._V1_SY317_CR12,0,214,317_AL_.jpg
After weeks of rumblings that Roberto Orci was the frontrunner, sources have told Variety that Skydance and Paramount have indeed tapped Orci to direct Paramount and Skydance’s “Star Trek 3.”

Orci is currently writing the story with J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay and had been campaigning to replace J.J. Abrams as director for some time. Abrams is busy with directing the next installment of the “Star Wars” franchise and will only be producing this pic.

Par, Skydance and his reps had no comment.

Plot details are unknown, but cast members including Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are expected to return. Abrams will produce along with his producing partner Bryan Burke and Skydance’s David Ellison.

The news comes after Orci and longtime writing partner Alex Kurtzman decided to go their separate ways on future filmmaking endeavors (although their TV production company is staying intact). Sources had told Variety that both were looking to direct more pics and that going solo would be in the best interest of both parties.

Orci is repped by CAA.

Being a director on such a popular franchise means the Trek fandom are going to be relentless in what they think about his decisions. The job requires a thick skin. We'll learn sooner or later whether he's grown from his previous clashes with fandom. He's going to need all the luck he can get right now.

http://www.slashfilm.com/roberto-orci-fires-back-at-star-trek-into-darkness-haters-fck-off/
Despite a robust Rotten Tomatoes score of 87%, Star Trek Into Darkness found quite a few detractors when it hit screens. Worse, many of them were longtime Star Trek fans who hated it enough to rank it the worst Star Trek movie of all time in a poll at a recent convention.

That negative reaction got Trek lover Joseph Dickerson thinking, and he penned a long essay calling the franchise “broken” and offering ideas on how to fix it. Where things got really interesting, though, was when Star Trek Into Darkness writer Roberto Orci personally got involved in the comments suggestion. Eventually, he served up a suggestion of his own for his critics: “Fuck off!” Hit the jump to read what happened.

Orci’s first response to Dickerson’s post on StarTrek.com (via Daily Dot) was, simply, “Fascinating.” But as he got deeper into the conversation, he started to get cranky.

I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.

Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of “broken.” And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.

Respect all opinions, always, nonetheless.

I don’t even think Dickerson’s “tone” was all that nasty, but Orci clearly wasn’t in the mood. He later challenged a fan to “Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s comapre [sic, here and elsewhere] it to other pitches. Go ahead.” Then, when that commenter responded by comparing Into Darkness unfavorably to Indiana Jones, Orci blew up.

Shitty Dodge. STID has infinetly more social commentary than Raiders in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend. You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!



(And yes, that is something Pegg has said before, as in this Huffington Post interview. Well, technically, he said “fuck you” there, but you know, same spirit.)

Eventually, Orci cooled down enough to offer a more diplomatic response.

don’ take me too seriously. if you’ve been on this board for the lar 5 years (as I have beeb) you know that twice a year I explode at the morons. today, there seemed to be a congregation, so it seemed like a good time.

you are the most listened to fans ever. That doesn’t mean you will get is to do what you want. just means what I said: I listened. Then we decided, having heard as many opinions as possible. To paraphrase of one of my great and beloved heroes, George W. Bush, “we’re the deciders….

He sounded apologetic on Twitter as well.

It can’t be fun for Orci to read people rip apart something he worked hard on, so it’s understandable if he feels a little miffed. But yelling at fans surely isn’t the way to win them back, or to convince them that Star Trek 3 won’t just be another massive disappointment.

As Orci himself pointed out in the beginning, it’s his job to write the movie. It’s implied that part of that job is to write a movie that will please the existing fanbase, since they buy a lot of the tickets and merchandise and encourage their friends to do the same. Throwing a hissy fit in the StarTrek.com comments section doesn’t seem like the best convince disillusioned fans that they are “the most listened to fans ever.”

What Orci doesn’t seem to get is that it isn’t the fans’ job to love the franchise unconditionally. He called commenter Ahmed a “shitty” fan in part because Ahmed had the nerve to suggest Indiana Jones was better. It’s true that fanbases as devoted as Star Trek‘s can be hard to please, and that they can be very vocal when they’re unhappy. But Orci knew that when he signed on.

At the end of the day, this kerfuffle doesn’t have any big immediate impact on the series. Star Trek Into Darkness has already made tons of money, and a third Star Trek is a matter of when, not if. However, Dickerson’s essay indicates that the Star Trek franchise is moving further away from what fans want, and Orci’s prickly response suggests that the filmmakers don’t really care to change course.

Well, either that, or it just reveals that Orci is terrible at online impulse control. If there’s one crystal-clear lesson to be learned, it’s that folks with tempers should really think twice before responding to Internet haters. Few people come out looking good afterward, and that goes double if the teller-offer is the rich, famous writer behind a billion-dollar franchise and the “haters” are just normal moviegoers who didn’t care for a particular film.

Discuss Trek's movies, tv shows, cartoons, EU - anything pertaining to Trek's wonderful universe. If you feel the need to kill Neelix do it in the Holodeck - that's Tuvok approved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbfeDc4MfsI

edit: Title change to reflect Justin Lin becoming Trek 3's director.

Harry Dresden on
«134567102

Posts

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I've got to say, this does not fill me with confidence for the next movie.

    sig.gif
  • BubbyBubby Registered User regular
    Hahaha oh man the guy is a crybaby. "I get to write movies and you don't" is how petulant manchildren deal with criticism.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Yea, he sounds a bit dickish. But his biggest mistake seems to be trying to engage with the biggest fans of a franchise like this one. They're impossible to please.

  • edited May 2014
    This content has been removed.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    And it was still better than about half of the Trek movies.

    When the fans list Into Darkness as the "worst" Trek movie in a world where the original motion picture, Nemesis, and Insurrection exist, I'm probably going to consider their opinions firmly in the "not useful" camp.

  • OmnibusOmnibus Registered User regular
    The Motion Picture gave us Goldsmith's music and the Constitution Refit. I can't hate on it too much.

    I want the next movie to feature either a God-Like Entity or an Evil Computer That Kirk Talks To Death.

  • see317see317 Registered User regular
    Omnibus wrote: »
    The Motion Picture gave us Goldsmith's music and the Constitution Refit. I can't hate on it too much.

    I want the next movie to feature either a God-Like Entity or an Evil Computer That Kirk Talks To Death.
    Why not both?
    GodBender.jpg


  • OmnibusOmnibus Registered User regular
    'Cause as much as I love the thing, people would complain that we've already done V'Ger.

  • InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    And it was still better than about half of the Trek movies.

    When the fans list Into Darkness as the "worst" Trek movie in a world where the original motion picture, Nemesis, and Insurrection exist, I'm probably going to consider their opinions firmly in the "not useful" camp.

    I don't fault them for not liking Into Darkness, but yeah, there are much worse and nonsensical Trek films.

    I just hope after the last film they do a non-terrible tv show. BBC America is only able to quench my thirst for more good Trek with TNG reruns for so long.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Omnibus wrote: »
    'Cause as much as I love the thing, people would complain that we've already done V'Ger.

    Not all homicidal robots in Trek need to be V'Ger rip-offs. TOS tv show didn't do that.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Vger was a nomad ripoff so...

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Into Darkness is two hours of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's like a shark that can't stop swimming or it'll die; the movie has to keep moving at a breakneck pace to keep the audience distracted from the script making no god damn sense whatsoever.
    So Admiral Robocop enlists a 300-year-old ubermensch to build him a bunch of weapons. He refuses to thaw out Khan's fellow ubermenschen so Khan hides them in the long-range super-torpedos he built instead of, y'know, waking them up and busting out of super-secret Jupiter Base (that's so classified anybody can just fly right up inside of it no questions asked).

    Then he convinces Starfleet Officer Daddy to become a suicide bomber in exchange for healing his daughter with his magic blood and instead of, y'know, demonstrating that his blood is magic by using it on... anything else, he cures the kid first. Officer Daddy is apparently just too damn honorable to renege on the deal, so he blows up himself and a shitload of other people - and this guy is on staff at super-secret Section 31, whose job it is to search out and eliminate threats to the Federation. This is like convincing an FBI agent to blow up his own office after curing his kid's cancer.

    Then after shooting up a room full of Starfleet brass, Khan escapes by transporting directly from Earth to the Klingon homeworld (that super beaming deus ex machina was stupid in the first nuTrek and it's still stupid here). So Admiral Robocop sends Kirk off with a ship full of super-torpedos to assassinate Khan. The torpedos that can't be scanned. And have had their fuel/engines removed and replaced with frozen super-soldiers. And Admiral Robocop knew about this because when Kirk told him he discovered the cryo pods, he wasn't even the littlest bit surprised. I mean, how could he be? He loaded the Enterprise with exactly the number of torpedos as Khan had crewmen. And they were built at his super-secret base so how could he not know what was inside?

    I'd also probably complain about Kirk's mission being to stand off in the Neutral Zone and fire the torpedos at the Klingon homeworld deep within their empire, so clearly they must have warp engines? But they're barely larger than a man. Doesn't matter since space in nuTrek is both unbelievably small and unbelievably empty. Remember how in nuTrek 1 they flew from Earth to Vulcan in like five minutes? Well Klingon homeworld to Earth is thirty-five seconds at warp. And how the shit is Kirk able to call Scotty on Earth from Klingon space exactly?

    There are no other ships to be seen anywhere, except the three Klingon ones they run into on "the deserted area" of their own homeworld -- aren't Klingons an aggressive, militaristic warrior culture? Why is their homeworld effectively unguarded? For that matter, why is Earth unguarded too? Didn't it very nearly get destroyed in the last movie, prompting the militarization-of-starfleet plot in this one? Even for space, everything seems to happen in a total vacuum, like it's a puppet show and there's only so much room in the box.

    Why is Spock bitching about the Prime Directive so much at the beginning when their entire mission on that planet was in violation of it? Why the fuck was the Enterprise underwater? Why does Kirk get stripped of his command and kicked back to the Academy, only to have that punishment rescinded in literally the next scene and instead demoted to first officer? Which never goes into effect anyway, because Kirk is immediately re-promoted to Captain after Khan's attack. So what the hell was the point of all that?

    Why do they even have transporters when they never fucking work? You could take a shot every time somebody comes up with an excuse for why the transporter doesn't work and be hammered by halftime. I'm pretty sure they only actually work four times over the course of the entire movie, and three of those are when the bad guys are using them.

    Why does the guard Scotty runs into on Admiral Robocop's ship not recognize a standard issue communicator? He seriously has no fucking clue where those voices are coming from or what that thing is on the floor. Did he just get thawed out after 300 years?

    Why the fuck does Khan have magic healing blood?? Oh, that's right, because we're going to kill Kirk the same way Spock died in Wrath of Khan and we can't have a downer ending so he needs to be magicked back to life. So why were they worried about Spock killing Khan at the end? His own blood is inside him already, he obviously can't ever die.

    Fuck, just, fuck. I really have to stop watching anything with an Orci, Kurtzman and/or Lindelof writing credit because these fucking guys are just brain poison.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard The duck MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    Why are there two Star Trek threads?

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited May 2014
    Why are there two Star Trek threads?

    The last thread is over 100 pages. It isn't long for this world.

    Harry Dresden on
  • InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    One thread alone could not contain the nerdrage.

    Also the other thread was over 100 pages.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Yea, he sounds a bit dickish. But his biggest mistake seems to be trying to engage with the biggest fans of a franchise like this one. They're impossible to please.

    He mustn't have paid attention when Karen Traviss did that on TheForce.net.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Why are there two Star Trek threads?

    The last thread is over 100 pages. It isn't long for this world.

    4JfvwrL.jpg?1

    Get me a cryo-pod, stat!

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Why are there two Star Trek threads?

    The last thread is over 100 pages. It isn't long for this world.

    4JfvwrL.jpg?1

    Get me a cryo-pod, stat!

    tumblr_mld01voh5i1s8vmtuo1_250.gif

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    I've got to say, this does not fill me with confidence for the next movie.

    Nothing I've seen says he's ever directed anything before.

    And let's face it, we already know he's not that great a writer and Abrahms was half of what these movies had going for them. (the other half being the cast)

    There's little reason to be hopeful.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    I've got to say, this does not fill me with confidence for the next movie.

    Nothing I've seen says he's ever directed anything before.

    And let's face it, we already know he's not that great a writer and Abrahms was half of what these movies had going for them. (the other half being the cast)

    There's little reason to be hopeful.

    He hasn't. Welp.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2014
    Brutal J wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    It's true that there are a lot of contrivances and coincidences in movies like TDK but they all fit with the motivations of the characters. The Joker is incredibly lucky and able to think of incredible plans on the fly but it all serves his goal of causing chaos, making Gotham burn, and showing how everyone has the potential to become like him.

    The problem with Into Darkness is that the character's actions do not fit their motivations. The actions of Khan and Marcus don't make sense with respect to what they were trying to achieve.
    Khan's attack on Starfleet was supposed to be an attempt to get revenge on Admiral Marcus because he thinks Marcus killed his crew. However, nothing he did helped him achieve that goal. If anything, all he did was help Marcus and his plan to militarize Starfleet and start a war with the Klingons.

    Sure it does.
    Khan works with Marcus to get his crew back or to get back at Starfleet at every point in the film. Marcus works towards his goal of building a bigger meaner Starfleet at any cost at every point in the film. And so on.

    I'm really not sure at what point you think their actions don't match their motivations.

    So.. many.. things...
    First off, there is nothing I remember that indicates Khan thought his crew was dead. It doesn't even make sense for him to think they were, and even if he did why doesn't he kill Admiral Robocop then, the dude has an undetectable mega bomb he can hide in a ring and has as a flying attack scooter, and he can't kill him? Seemed to me he wasn't trying at all, especially since he for some reason after killing everyone but him, escapes all the way to Q'nos... for some reason.

    And if you're thinking "well, he seemed surprised when Sulu mentioned the 72 torpedoes", what part of that was surprising? The fact they were on the ship? The fact they were the exact number of his crew? I dunno, the movie doesn't tell you.

    Everything that happens in the beginning of the movie tells us they are working together, but as the movie goes on that falls apart. Like when Khan and Robocop meet there is no bit about how the plan has failed or he's changed it or anything, Khan's just abloo abloos about his peeps and crushes his head.

    I'm not even sure what Admiral Robocop's plan was. Like he seemed surprised by Kirk still being where he was, but Robocop sabotaged the ship right? So what's surprising? Did he expect the Klingons to come and destroy the Enterprise by now? In which case why is he showing up there in his ship at all? Being the first on the scene with his secret fuckoff ship would raise some questions no? Was he always going to just destroy the Enterprise himself? Why? Destroy your second best ship to start a war is a dumb plan, send a shitty ship, or just tell the Klingon's they are totes gay, that's all it would take to start a war with them. Not to mention they can tell what kind of weapon blows up a ship, they'd know if it was Klingon weapons or Federation, or some unknown, like CSI shit exists now.

    Oh wait, Admiral Robocop is surprised that Khan is on the Enterprise right? Okay, so he wanted Khan to be dead? Even though Khan's been helping him the entire time, and has kept his crew alive when he could have just killed them, and may or may not have put his crew in the torpedoes for some reason will someone please tell me why they are there for fucks sake.

    And how do you fire torpedoes with no fuel, it'd be one thing if they didn't mention where the extra space came from to fit Khan's crew, but no, they specifically mention the lack of fuel, so how were they suppose to fire? Or were they just going to explode and destroy the ship if they attempted to fire them? But then Khan would still be alive, so that makes no sense.

    Again why is Khan on Q'nos, like if he wanted to piss on the Federation, why did he beam on some desolate part of the planet, shouldn't he beam to the capital and tell the Klingons what's what? It's not like he'd have to worry about them killing him, he mowed down like 100 of them without any effort. Or was this part of the plan to have Khan and company take over Q'nos? Like 70+ Khans running around could fuck some serious shit up, and in theory if the torpedoes could launch they could deliver his crew right to them. Except, they have an active warhead and no fuel, Khan is surprised they are all on the ship and would have encouraged the ship to fire.

    This is why this movie fails, because it neither shows nor tells. It never specifically lays out what each character is doing, why, and how, you have to piece it together yourself, only to find that nothing actually matches up. You can't even take what Admiral Robocop or Khan say as 100% as they are both manipulating Kirk to do what they want, and don't say anything of significance to each other when they briefly meet.

    The movie desperately needed a Bond Villain "ah ha! This is my plan!" speech from both characters, because without it I just can't ascertain what's going on.

    See, none of this is an actual argument for what you think it is. You are confusing "Is the logic of this plot air-tight" (it's not) with "Are the motivations of the characters clear" (they are).

    Like, you can imagine a movie about a guy who hates the US government for killing his family in a drone strike and wants to get back at them. And that movie can have the most convoluted plot for how he does that, involving ridiculous coincidences, baffling "I'm a TV genius" levels of predicting outcomes and absurdly complicated plots for no reason. But none of that means the motivations of the guy aren't clear. It just probably means your movie has a bad plot.

    Basically all of your statements here can be summarized as "Why is BadGuy doing X to accomplish his goal instead of Y?", when the statement I made was that he's got a clear goal. You've gotten truly badly sidetracked here. This is a long list of nitpicks with the plotting of the movie and not an argument for unclear motivations.


    For more of this, again see here:
    Brutal J wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Brutal J wrote: »
    At first I just couldn't understand what you were saying Shryke, but I think I get it. You're saying it doesn't matter cause the movie is fun.

    But that's my problem, it's not fun. This isn't a fun movie, A Voyage Home was fun, it's a comedy, hijinks ensure. I never looked at A Voyage Home with a critical eye, because it's simply not a movie that demands it.

    Into Darkness is trying to be serious, it opens with 9/11 imagery for god's sake. It's about serious business issues with a militarized starfleet, Bush Doctrine parallels, death, and an extremely poorly executed character arc for Spock where he somehow goes into darkness inside himself or something I dunno.

    If you want to make a big boy movie like Wraith of Khan that's about something then you need to write like one. If you're trying to make Indiana Jones in space, awesome, love that movie, go for it, but you know, actually do it. Don't staple a bunch of half-baked ideas and tell me it's fun and exciting, because no, it isn't. I don't care about your poorly conceived villains, I don't care about your main characters that are either exaggerated forms of themselves or completely underutilized (looking at you Urban's McCoy), and if I don't understand what's happening and why I can't be invested in it's outcome. This movie is not an adventure like Voyage Home. It's plot, or what I can discern from it is far more in-keeping with Wraith of Khan and Undiscovered Country, two more serious Trek films that had the writing to carry them.

    But the movie is alot of fun.

    But that's not my argument anyway because "fun" is so vague and personal most of the time. The closest this gets to the point is that I'm kinda, I guess, saying one of the reasons it's fun.

    I'm saying it doesn't matter because while the overall plot of the movie isn't that logical, every individual moment is very well done. It's pretty and well directed and well acted. It's kinetic and tense and well paced and every moment of the film has an established point within the current conflict. It's always clear why we have to do this right now and what's in our way and everything works to make this urgent so we gotta zoom along. That's what gives the film it's character and I guess what makes it, for many, "fun". More to the point, it's why the film still works. It's why critics gave it the old thumbs up.


    Frankly, I'm not even sure what your problem with the film on any large scale. You are kinda all over the place with this nitpick or that nitpick. And, I mean, there's alot of nit to pick apart in the film. It's Lindelof/Orci/Kurtzman after all. You can tear this plot apart if you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie (though it does, say, keep it from being a great movie)

    But when you say shit like "It's just not fun", it's not clear at all why you think that.

    Into Darkness is a traditional film, made to be so; it's not Memento where it's shot backwards, and we are not wormhole aliens unfamiliar with the concept of linear time. You don't judge a film as individual scenes you judge it as the whole of those scenes; I have no idea what your getting at with this nonsense about each scene making sense on it's own, because that is not how a typical film works at all. Unless you're trying to weigh the film on a scale, taking it's pros and cons, but a scale doesn't judge how many things are on each side, it goes by weight. A film can have decent acting, directing, editing etc. and still be a pile of shit if it still manages to completely fail at one thing hard enough, and Into Darkness's script does that. It's so terrible that nothing else can outweigh it, especially when we're talking about it's story, which is the driving force behind any film. It's like you're saying it's a good book because it had good grammar and spelling. A good story can make a lot of faults feel small, but a bad story will always bring down your movie/book/game whatever, because technical aspects done well are frequently unnoticeable by the masses, but anyone can smell a shit story a mile away.

    If you can watch a movie like the guy from Memento, awesome, good for you, but that doesn't mean the movie was good. My problem is the plot is complete and total garbage. It makes no sense, none of it. I'm not nitpicking, and I'm not talking about some minor bullshit detail. I want to know what Khan and Admiral Robocop are doing, why they are doing it, and how we the audience are suppose to know this. These characters just do things, and I guess it will work out for them somehow? We are shown one thing, and we are either told or given enough information to infer something, then two scenes later, what we thought we knew is now wrong. There are so many things in this movie, that raise so many questions it's staggering. I've actually spent like two hours trying to think of a movie to compare this too, that's has a plot so inconsistent as this one (that like is actually like a real studio movie with a budget), and I've been completely unable to. Star Wars prequels and Transformers were shit, and poorly written, but I still knew mostly what was going on and why throughout the film. They assaulted my brain with their terribleness, but at least I could follow them.

    Also the movie doesn't vary wildly in tone all that much. I counted like five scenes that are whizz-bang actiony fun (and even that is arguable), while most the movie is full of death, murder, betrayal, arguing, terrorism, despair, etc. It's a dark film, that occasionally has mildly jokey or actiony scene. Temple of Doom has some weird tonal shifts, this movie, not so much.

    Like, this is completely missing the point being made. Like, I have no idea why you think Memento is at all relevant here since that's got nothing to do with what I said. The only thing I can figure is you seem to not understand criticisms that extend beyond the overall plotting of the movie. You can't seem to think of the movie in other terms. No one has claimed STID is anything but a standard linearly structure film and that's not what's ever been argued. No matter what point you are arguing against, everything you say always comes immediately back to nitpicking plot inconsistencies, while apparently not realising there's alot more to any film then that.

    The movie works because each individual small conflict in the chain of conflicts that make up the plot is well realised. Each action or dramatic situation is clear and well paced and well made. The movie moves almost crazily fast from one of these to the next with a little time for character beats interwoven in between. That these individual pieces don't all mesh together completely logically is not as important as you think. Because the audience is not worried about how this fits with that thing before because they are instead worried about how the thing that is happening right now is going down and they gave you a quick explanation for why it all fits together that will only fall apart if you think about it alot which you aren't at the time.

    And you can keep saying "No one watches films that way" but all the information available about the critical and commercial success of the film suggests otherwise. If you can't appreciate the film on that level, no one is forcing you to. But, by every metric we have available, the majority of people can.

    The thing I'm talking about above is a legitimately important part of filmmaking. Like, a REALLY REALLY important part of it. Important enough that it can somewhat stand on it's own even if the macro-level plotting isn't all there. Although obviously we'd rather it didn't have to. And that's what STID does well and why it reviewed well.

    And whenever you try and talk about this you immediately skip past this point to talk about the overall plot and don't actually engage the argument being made at all. There are other things to a film then what you keep going on about.


    PS - As a random addendum to this, I thought Film Crit Hulk did a decent job of talking somewhat obliquely about what I'm referring to here:
    J.J. ABRAMS IS AN OUTRAGEOUSLY TALENTED FILMMAKER.

    HIS CAMERA SWOOPS AND SWOONS AND SPLASHES WITH COLOR AND LIGHT, ALL BUILDING A KIND OF INNATE KINETICISM. THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS OFTEN THRILLING. MORE TO HIS CREDIT, HE CAN IMBUE A SCENE WITH SUCH ENERGY AND MOMENTARY PURPOSE. THIS CHARACTER IS ANGRY RIGHT NOW! THAT CHARACTER IS SAD! HIS CINEMA HYPER-EXPRESSES THAT EMOTION SO CLEARLY THAT THESE BEATS FEEL AS IF THEY WERE STAMPED WITH AN EXCLAMATION POINT. AND LUCKILY FOR US, HE ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS HOW THESE MOMENTS AFFECT AN AUDIENCE, HOW TO BALANCE THEM, AND JUST WHEN TO TIME THEM FOR MAXIMUM EFFECT. WE CALL THIS ABILITY “UNDERSTANDING TONE” AND IT’S ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ELEMENTS TO BEING A GOOD DIRECTOR.

    shryke on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    PS - As a random addendum to this, I thought Film Crit Hulk did a decent job of talking somewhat obliquely about what I'm referring to here:
    J.J. ABRAMS IS AN OUTRAGEOUSLY TALENTED FILMMAKER.

    HIS CAMERA SWOOPS AND SWOONS AND SPLASHES WITH COLOR AND LIGHT, ALL BUILDING A KIND OF INNATE KINETICISM. THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS OFTEN THRILLING. MORE TO HIS CREDIT, HE CAN IMBUE A SCENE WITH SUCH ENERGY AND MOMENTARY PURPOSE. THIS CHARACTER IS ANGRY RIGHT NOW! THAT CHARACTER IS SAD! HIS CINEMA HYPER-EXPRESSES THAT EMOTION SO CLEARLY THAT THESE BEATS FEEL AS IF THEY WERE STAMPED WITH AN EXCLAMATION POINT. AND LUCKILY FOR US, HE ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS HOW THESE MOMENTS AFFECT AN AUDIENCE, HOW TO BALANCE THEM, AND JUST WHEN TO TIME THEM FOR MAXIMUM EFFECT. WE CALL THIS ABILITY “UNDERSTANDING TONE” AND IT’S ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ELEMENTS TO BEING A GOOD DIRECTOR.

    Unfortunately his Trek movies are marred by awful screenplays by Orci and Kurtzman. Being a good director can't save a poor script from being noticed as being poor. Which happens five minutes after the movie ends when people think about exactly what was going on. Still, he's miles better with screenplays than the Oblivion guy.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2014
    shryke wrote: »
    PS - As a random addendum to this, I thought Film Crit Hulk did a decent job of talking somewhat obliquely about what I'm referring to here:
    J.J. ABRAMS IS AN OUTRAGEOUSLY TALENTED FILMMAKER.

    HIS CAMERA SWOOPS AND SWOONS AND SPLASHES WITH COLOR AND LIGHT, ALL BUILDING A KIND OF INNATE KINETICISM. THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS OFTEN THRILLING. MORE TO HIS CREDIT, HE CAN IMBUE A SCENE WITH SUCH ENERGY AND MOMENTARY PURPOSE. THIS CHARACTER IS ANGRY RIGHT NOW! THAT CHARACTER IS SAD! HIS CINEMA HYPER-EXPRESSES THAT EMOTION SO CLEARLY THAT THESE BEATS FEEL AS IF THEY WERE STAMPED WITH AN EXCLAMATION POINT. AND LUCKILY FOR US, HE ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS HOW THESE MOMENTS AFFECT AN AUDIENCE, HOW TO BALANCE THEM, AND JUST WHEN TO TIME THEM FOR MAXIMUM EFFECT. WE CALL THIS ABILITY “UNDERSTANDING TONE” AND IT’S ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ELEMENTS TO BEING A GOOD DIRECTOR.

    Unfortunately his Trek movies are marred by awful screenplays by Orci and Kurtzman. Being a good director can't save a poor script from being noticed as being poor. Which happens five minutes after the movie ends when people think about exactly what was going on. Still, he's miles better with screenplays than the Oblivion guy.

    Not enough, by all the evidence, to make most people dislike the movie though.

    His Trek movies are certainly undermined by some bad plotting but not enough, imo, to make them not still enjoyable.

    shryke on
  • TOGSolidTOGSolid Drunk sailor Seattle, WashingtonRegistered User regular
    edited May 2014
    Basically, Into Darkness boils down like this: Are you 100% completely capable of focusing entirely on the visual and emotional aspect of the film and ignoring the who/what/when/where/why aspect? Then you'll probably like it. If you can't help but pick up on the subsurface details then you're going to get an Orci/Kurtzman induced aneurysm. That said, I don't think J.J. Abram's capabilities as a director have ever been in question with these new movies. They're both very well shot with solid direction and I can find no fault in his work save for maybe the silly lens flares. The only problems the movies have are due to the script they're saddled with. If you can ignore it, hooray, if you can't then oh god you're in for a migraine.

    In happier news I've been watching Deep Space 9 start to finish and god damn this show is fantastic. Even the weakest filler episodes are still pretty damn solid though within the context of the show as a whole they definitely tend to stand out. Especially when going from a huge Dominion War arc to a more "situation of the week" style episode. I'm midway through season six currently and greatly enjoying "kicks ass and takes names" Worf.

    TOGSolid on
    wWuzwvJ.png
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    I can't get over how important those fucking missiles are to the plot of Into Darkness and how little sense everything about them makes.
    -They're the reason Admiral Robocop sends Kirk to Kronos (to shoot them at the Klingons and start a war)

    -They're the reason Carol Marcus forges her way onto the Enterprise (to learn what's inside)

    -They're the reason Scotty leaves the Enterprise (because no one will tell him what's inside)

    -They're the reason Khan surrenders to Kirk

    -They're half the reason Kirk gets resurrected (because the cryo pod preserves his brain functions)

    -They're the thing the destroys the big bad evil black ship

    And yet

    Khan builds the super-missiles for Admiral Robocop. After he refuses to thaw out Khan's crew (which is actually a very pragmatic decision), instead of waking them himself Khan rips out the fuel systems in the 72 missiles and inserts the cryo pods of his 72 crew. (Apparently) nobody notices that those pods are missing, and nobody gives a second thought that the missiles are impervious to scanners and either booby-trapped or built so volatile that opening one sets off the warhead. Way to strap your family to a bunch of fucking high explosives, Khan! He then escapes and plans his revenge in a way that implies he thinks Admiral Robocop killed his crew. (Why not break them out of secret Jupiter Base or wherever, they obviously have no security since Scotty was able to waltz right in the front door.)

    Did he escape to Kronos specifically in the hopes that Robocop would fire those special long range missiles at him? If so: congratulations, the missiles won't actually fire because you took out their fucking fuel. And they might just explode in the tubes because you built them so god damn twitchy. Also his surrender being contingent on learning that the Enterprise has all 72 missiles implies he didn't know they were deployed against him until Sulu announced it. And the fact that every single missile had a cryo-pod in it means that either a) Khan built precisely 72 missiles, the exact number of his crew, and Robocop didn't notice,* or 2) they built more than 72 and by some coincidence only the ones with frozen dudes instead of fuel were loaded onto the Enterprise.

    *Except Robocop obviously did notice, because when Kirk tells Robocop about the cryo-pods he is not surprised at all. He just ignores that rather crucial plot twist and barrels on with his evil villain speech. Which makes him sending Kirk off to start a war with non-functional missiles even dumber.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • This content has been removed.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    I agree with the Red Letter Media guy who said the movie is just like a 2-hour magic trick, dazzling you with misdirection and hoping you won't notice what the hell is really going on because there's no substance to it, it's all superficial flash and forced emotional moments.
    Like how creepy it was that Spock mind-melds with Pike to experience what death feels like. It'd be one thing if he had been trying to comfort him in his final moments but it just came off like a weird science project.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • Oniros25Oniros25 Registered User regular
    For me, the plot of Into Darkness is actually almost there and that's the most maddening thing about it. I can see a really good story in there, it just never quite immerged. For a movie that is more personally satisfying to me I would only change:
    1. Make sure Benny Batch is not Khan. Seriously, since the end of Star Trek, I'd been dreading the reboot universe bungling things by abusing that character and sure enough they did. Maybe it's just me, but I found John Harrison a much more facinating figure than when he reveals he is Kahn. Granted, that is partially because I know Kahn and from there, I could lazily predict every single thing he did all the way up to the finale. All tension and mystique got sucked right out of the character. I know these movies are obviously not written for Star Trek fans, but fuck man! I already saw how this went down. You can't just rearrange a few pieces and call it a new movie! Plus, how interesting is it if he's not the actual villain? Harrison knows that Admiral Robocop is going to start a war that will kill millions of people. He knows that most if not all of Starfleet's top brass are in on it. So, he stages the hit at the beginning in an attempt to stop total war, then when he fails to get them all, he flees toward the Klingon Homeworld (not straight to the homeworld, mind. That is stupid...) in order to warn the Klingons and try to negotiate on behalf of earth. Admiral Robocop orders Kirk to go get him as he did. When Kirk runs him down, he has to deal with the notion that the guy who killed his father figure might actually be the good guy in all this mess. Can he control his emotions over his dead friend enough to follow through with the ultimate good? Spock and Bones are counciling him in opposite directions.

    2. Make the Klingons more important. I really feel like the Star Trek thing to do would be to turn Admiral Robocop over to the Klingons to prevent galactic war. Like, since they just showed up on the Klingon homeworld, shot the place up and just left, galactic war is now a certainty, yes? Kirk and company are going to be responcible for more deaths than Kahn by a country mile once that war kicks off. Jesus, people!

    Other than those few things though, it is still a well paced and exciting film. Granted my cut, which I will humbly call the "makes sense edition" would probably cut out a few fight scenes, but it would add in several scene with stronger dramatic acting potential, so...even steven?

    Nintendo Network ID: Oniros
    3DS Friend Code: 1461-7489-3097
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard The duck MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    Anyone here can spend 3 minutes on the shitter and make a better plot that's more coherent.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Anyone here can spend 3 minutes on the shitter and make a better plot that's more coherent.

    Whose minutes are we talking about here? Because Into Darkness' "3 minutes to weapons restored" includes five minutes of exposition and a ten minute action scene. It was like DBZ level time distortion.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    The thing that people are basically talking about is the suspension of disbelief, and just as a reminder, some people are not faking a suspension of disbelief to annoy you, while other people are not deliberately withholding suspension of disbelief out of spite.

    "excuse my French
    But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
    - Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
  • TOGSolidTOGSolid Drunk sailor Seattle, WashingtonRegistered User regular
    edited May 2014
    Oh man, the first Vic Fontaine episode.

    Who'd have thought that a fluff character like that would end up being such a god damn cool recurring character?

    TOGSolid on
    wWuzwvJ.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Omnibus wrote: »
    'Cause as much as I love the thing, people would complain that we've already done V'Ger.

    nobody outside the internet cares if something is a ripoff if its any good

    into darkness wasnt bad because it was a ripoff, it was bad because it was bad

  • sullijosullijo mid-level minion subterranean bunkerRegistered User regular
    I think the biggest indictment of STID is that no two recaps of the plot on this board are the same. The filmmakers were unable to effectively communicate the back story and motivations, so everyone interprets/remembers them differently.

    When I was driving once I saw this painted on a bridge:
    "I don't want the world, I just want your half"
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    TOGSolid wrote: »
    Oh man, the first Vic Fontaine episode.

    Who'd have thought that a fluff character like that would end up being such a god damn cool recurring character?

    I liked Vic but the way he was used was pretty hit or miss. I especially hated how Vic almost became a replacement for Quark. Heck, the party they had in the last episode took place in Vic's holodsuite rather than Quark's bar, that was just wrong.

  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    TOGSolid wrote: »
    Oh man, the first Vic Fontaine episode.

    Who'd have thought that a fluff character like that would end up being such a god damn cool recurring character?

    I liked Vic but the way he was used was pretty hit or miss. I especially hated how Vic almost became a replacement for Quark. Heck, the party they had in the last episode took place in Vic's holodsuite rather than Quark's bar, that was just wrong.
    But can you imagine Quark singing "The Way You Look Tonight"?

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    I don't hate Vic, but I don't particularly like him either. I thought the episode with Nog having PSTD was pretty great. I kinda liked the heist episode.

    "excuse my French
    But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
    - Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    I don't know if "hate" is the right word (he's no Neelix), but I definitely disliked Vic and all the stupid episodes he spawned.

    Nog's PTSD episode was good, but even then Vic was mostly incidental to the central issue of Nog hiding in a fictional world.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    sullijo wrote: »
    I think the biggest indictment of STID is that no two recaps of the plot on this board are the same. The filmmakers were unable to effectively communicate the back story and motivations, so everyone interprets/remembers them differently.

    It's what you get when you apply a cynical, too-cool-for-school approach to filmmaking to a 50-year-old franchise. The writers don't really have any respect for the source material, they're just scouring the existing stories for things that seemed popular or iconic and cramming them haphazardly into a narrative that's held together by chewing gum and explosions. It only "works" if you're too dazzled by the spectacle to realize that what's happening on screen now doesn't match up with what was happening ten minutes ago.

    Contrast to, say, everything Marvel Studios is putting out. For whatever faults their individual films might have, they don't have problems like this because there is a genuine respect for the source material and treat those legacy stories and characters as more than just elements that are thawed out solely to elicit an emotional response or just straight-up fanservice.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    STID is so disappointing because the opening sequence and Kirk actually having to face consequences and the spectre of using long range weapons (DROOOOOOOOONES) to murder people extrajudicially were all good

    It feels like they almost had a good movie but then had to rework it to make it fit a list of check boxes

This discussion has been closed.