The thing that strikes me as a really bizarre decision
is to redo Wrath of Khan in the first place
Wrath is such a good movie, relying on well established and loved characters to heighten the drama.
Abrams is perfectly capable of crafting his own stories, why invite comparisons like that?
Pretty much
They made references non-fans won't get and [some] fans won't like.
Scenes were re-enacted in this one (with role reversal, woo!) only because they were in the original, and without the impact behind them.
I liked it. I just feel I would have liked it more if they did their own thing.
Exactly my reaction. It's easy to see the scenes coming here.
Meh. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more having known going in that it was a
straight-up remake of the Wrath of Khan.
Except it wasn't.
I mean, seriously, the movie is full of WoK homages, but it's not a remake in any way. The plots are structured nothing alike, the motivations and main conflicts aren't even similar and every single touch from WoK it reuses is repurposed for a different theme.
I'd probably say it's exactly what you SHOULD do if you want to pay tribute to a previous property. Wink at the fans of the original while using some of the same elements to tell a new and different story.
You're right, in all honesty.
The real scene that bugged me was when Kirk died in the engine room. You knew that he was going to die, and you knew that he was going to be resurrected, thanks to Khan's magical blood. In the original WOK, that scene had so much more weight. Bah. It just left me shaking my head in the movie. And then Spock cried, and then he yelled Khan and I was like "Ugh, really?"
Really when I think about it, I loved the Khan reveal. That surprised and interested me. And I liked seeing the Enterprise, and Earth, and Star Fleet and the rest. The action and space battles were also pretty sweet. And the plot and story itself was interesting. When I really think about it, it's that damnned engine room scene that bothers me. Which really isn't enough to condemn the whole movie.
They did reboot it entirely. I mean, does this look like your TOS Trek to you?
No, they didn't. They created an alternate timeline directly connected to the prior universe - that's why the Narada's crew and Spock Prime are from the original universe. A different timeline is completely different to a different universe.
They just kinda sorta like to be coy and act like the old Trek is still there, but this is reboot in every way that matters.
Which only makes the connection to the original universe stronger. If the new Trek movies are in the past the lore needs to be the same, or as close as possible, otherwise the plot to the '09 movie makes no sense. This isn't a Burton/Nolan Batman situation.
Personally, I agree with you. I think the time travel bits were the weakest parts of the 09 Star Trek. I feel like if they had just said, "Yeah, it's a total reboot, like Batman Begins. Get over it." fans would have been cool with it.
The thing that strikes me as a really bizarre decision
is to redo Wrath of Khan in the first place
Wrath is such a good movie, relying on well established and loved characters to heighten the drama.
Abrams is perfectly capable of crafting his own stories, why invite comparisons like that?
Pretty much
They made references non-fans won't get and [some] fans won't like.
Scenes were re-enacted in this one (with role reversal, woo!) only because they were in the original, and without the impact behind them.
I liked it. I just feel I would have liked it more if they did their own thing.
Exactly my reaction. It's easy to see the scenes coming here.
Meh. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more having known going in that it was a
straight-up remake of the Wrath of Khan.
Except it wasn't.
I mean, seriously, the movie is full of WoK homages, but it's not a remake in any way. The plots are structured nothing alike, the motivations and main conflicts aren't even similar and every single touch from WoK it reuses is repurposed for a different theme.
I'd probably say it's exactly what you SHOULD do if you want to pay tribute to a previous property. Wink at the fans of the original while using some of the same elements to tell a new and different story.
You're right, in all honesty.
The real scene that bugged me was when Kirk died in the engine room. You knew that he was going to die, and you knew that he was going to be resurrected, thanks to Khan's magical blood. In the original WOK, that scene had so much more weight. Bah. It just left me shaking my head in the movie. And then Spock cried, and then he yelled Khan and I was like "Ugh, really?"
Really when I think about it, I loved the Khan reveal. That surprised and interested me. And I liked seeing the Enterprise, and Earth, and Star Fleet and the rest. The action and space battles were also pretty sweet. And the plot and story itself was interesting. When I really think about it, it's that damnned engine room scene that bothers me. Which really isn't enough to condemn the whole movie.
I think the engine-room scene was a good idea, it's just by waving the Chekov's Gun around so obviously a few minutes before, they rob it of it's emotional impact. They should have left the hint to the resolution of that issue as the part at the start of the film with the little girl. It gives you all the info you need, but it's subtle enough and long ago enough that it wouldn't register near as strongly.
And also maybe cut some of the ending chase/fight so there's less time between Kirk gone and "We can rebuild him. We have the technology magic-blood." I don't know, at that point it's all too set up for the Spock/Khan fight to have any real tension to it, even if thematically it's a great addition.
And yeah, the Khan scream, for anyone who knows their pop-culture, is just too iconic to not be funny rather than moving. Should have gone for a different delivery. I think a soft but really fucking angry sounding "Khan" from SPock would have done the trick.
+2
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Defiance is basically Mad Max, the series only with aliens for some reason. Wich is cool and all but I've seen it and better done already.
Warehouse 13 though, is actually new and more importantly the characters are great. Even if it is blatantly based on the "top men" scene from Raiders ofthe Lost Ark.
The premise reminds me of the old Friday the 13th series, which probably no one here even remembers. Same idea though; group of people tracking down dangerous magical artifacts.
The big differences being in Friday the 13th the group didn't have pseudo-government authority and the artifacts were all always indisputably evil, whereas in Warehouse 13 the artifacts vary substantially in terms of power, danger, and whether or not they are objectively evil.
I'm sorry but you have the entire premise of Friday the 13th series completely wrong: The premise is "Individual has some sort of ancient evil artifact that turns murder into money/youth, and here is this motley crew of antique shop employees trying to capture said artifact again." Every. Single. Episode.
Some of the more ridiculous ones:
A teapot that keeps a singer youtheful. Her hit song? Why, the royalty free "I'm a little teapot" done in an 80's punk way
Wood chipper that shoots out dollar bills yall when fed legs, arms and everything inbetween.
The lighthouse light that vaporizes people. With a ghostly rowboat and whose occupant drops of doubloons after a successful murder.
Defiance is basically Mad Max, the series only with aliens for some reason. Wich is cool and all but I've seen it and better done already.
Warehouse 13 though, is actually new and more importantly the characters are great. Even if it is blatantly based on the "top men" scene from Raiders ofthe Lost Ark.
The premise reminds me of the old Friday the 13th series, which probably no one here even remembers. Same idea though; group of people tracking down dangerous magical artifacts.
The big differences being in Friday the 13th the group didn't have pseudo-government authority and the artifacts were all always indisputably evil, whereas in Warehouse 13 the artifacts vary substantially in terms of power, danger, and whether or not they are objectively evil.
I'm sorry but you have the entire premise of Friday the 13th series completely wrong: The premise is "Individual has some sort of ancient evil artifact that turns murder into money/youth, and here is this motley crew of antique shop employees trying to capture said artifact again." Every. Single. Episode.
Some of the more ridiculous ones:
A teapot that keeps a singer youtheful. Her hit song? Why, the royalty free "I'm a little teapot" done in an 80's punk way
Wood chipper that shoots out dollar bills yall when fed legs, arms and everything inbetween.
The lighthouse light that vaporizes people. With a ghostly rowboat and whose occupant drops of doubloons after a successful murder.
Uh.
Kay.
Not sure how the premise you just described is any different than how I described it, beyond the obvious complaint of bad writing.
You did not sell the show. You have to sell it like your life depended on it.
To me the premise is "How fucking ridiculous can we make this object from the prop department in terms of death"
It's an ancient show that nobody watched and isn't in syndication. I didn't realize I needed to describe it accurately beyond "Warehouse 13 reminds me of it because <team> <collects artifact of the week> + <danger>"
warehouse 13 is that scene from indiana jones where they put the ark of the covenant into that mysterious warehouse made into a whole series about that warehouse full of strange artifacts
it's silly, sometimes stupid, but the cast is lovable and often awesome, and there seems to be some sort of overarching mystery going on.. not to forget the really really fun references (and more..) to historic characters
+1
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
You did not sell the show. You have to sell it like your life depended on it.
To me the premise is "How fucking ridiculous can we make this object from the prop department in terms of death"
It's an ancient show that nobody watched and isn't in syndication. I didn't realize I needed to describe it accurately beyond "Warehouse 13 reminds me of it because <team> <collects artifact of the week> + <danger>"
I WATCHED IT! I WAS THERE!
waiting for the next disc to show up. That fucking show is also so goddamn Canadian.
So I saw Into Darkness last night and had a lot of fun! It wasn't an incredible movie, sure, but it was exciting and entertaining. Lots of great fan service too.
Is that the wrong opinion to have? I heard I should dislike it.
So I saw Into Darkness last night and had a lot of fun! It wasn't an incredible movie, sure, but it was exciting and entertaining. Lots of great fan service too.
Is that the wrong opinion to have? I heard I should dislike it.
I wouldn't say so! I enjoyed it while I was there and my parents want to see it, which I think they should because they'll enjoy it too. But I also found I left the cinema with the nagging feeling that something was wrong (same as I had with Prometheus) and so I start picking at it in my head, which caused the film to unravel for me. It's very hard not to sound superior when talking about problems I have with a film, like I think I'm so great for finding flaws in something you enjoyed, but really, that's just the way I work. Everyone's free to enjoy what they do, yo.
And all I could think about when returning home from Into Darkness was
Quinto's pathetic "Khaaaaan" yell and the entire scene that led up to it. There was nothing in the movie that was good enough to overcome how bad that was.
+1
Options
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
The more I read this thread, the more I like the movie. Also, this:
Bennett and Meyer were what Star Trek needed: creative individuals who had never before seen the show and therefore could respect the material without slobbering up the works with a fanboy sense that Star Trek was something holy. When they took over creation of the second film, they went back and looked at every episode of the original series. Bringing back a plot hook from the good old days was a strategic a priori decision, and the first-season story "Space Seed" provided two conjoined attention-getters : Montalban and his striking portrayal of Khan.
By viewing each of the original 79 episodes, Bennett and Meyer learned everything they could about what worked and what didn't. With changing times, they left behind the 1960s image of the U.S.S. Enterprise as a galactic Peace Corps bringing American-style enlightenment to benighted heathens on faraway worlds. Rather, what worked were elements that bolster the best screen science fiction by transcending the genre ghetto — an emphasis on storytelling over winky-blink hardware, character-oriented writing, plots that freshened up clichéd SF concepts, and gee-whiz spaceships and ray guns that existed for more than their own sake. Not every episode was first-rate stuff, to be sure. One can imagine Bennett and Meyer setting fire to their contracts while sitting through all those shitty third-season eps. But there were enough strong stories to make clear what girdered the show's stubbornly stalwart appeal to an audience still swelling more than a decade after the series' brief network lifespan.
Meyer's fresh, non-reverential approach made him exactly the right man for the job of "re-imagining" the TV series while paradoxically remaining faithful to it. He maintained a masterful grip on the proceedings, handling action, suspense, and tragedy with equal aplomb
I'm not really seeing where Abrams' managed to leave "winky-blink hardware" and "clichéd SF concepts, and gee-whiz spaceships and ray guns" behind. I think he succeeded in putting those back onto center stage.
Surprisingly, there are people who don't think much of that.
So I saw Into Darkness last night and had a lot of fun! It wasn't an incredible movie, sure, but it was exciting and entertaining. Lots of great fan service too.
Is that the wrong opinion to have? I heard I should dislike it.
I wouldn't say so! I enjoyed it while I was there and my parents want to see it, which I think they should because they'll enjoy it too. But I also found I left the cinema with the nagging feeling that something was wrong (same as I had with Prometheus) and so I start picking at it in my head, which caused the film to unravel for me. It's very hard not to sound superior when talking about problems I have with a film, like I think I'm so great for finding flaws in something you enjoyed, but really, that's just the way I work. Everyone's free to enjoy what they do, yo.
Oh totally. There are so many problems with the plot, but I don't really care. It was fun!
Of course, I wish something could come back like TNG, but I'll take what we got if it gets people interested in Star Trek.
The more I read this thread, the more I like the movie. Also, this:
Bennett and Meyer were what Star Trek needed: creative individuals who had never before seen the show and therefore could respect the material without slobbering up the works with a fanboy sense that Star Trek was something holy. When they took over creation of the second film, they went back and looked at every episode of the original series. Bringing back a plot hook from the good old days was a strategic a priori decision, and the first-season story "Space Seed" provided two conjoined attention-getters : Montalban and his striking portrayal of Khan.
By viewing each of the original 79 episodes, Bennett and Meyer learned everything they could about what worked and what didn't. With changing times, they left behind the 1960s image of the U.S.S. Enterprise as a galactic Peace Corps bringing American-style enlightenment to benighted heathens on faraway worlds. Rather, what worked were elements that bolster the best screen science fiction by transcending the genre ghetto — an emphasis on storytelling over winky-blink hardware, character-oriented writing, plots that freshened up clichéd SF concepts, and gee-whiz spaceships and ray guns that existed for more than their own sake. Not every episode was first-rate stuff, to be sure. One can imagine Bennett and Meyer setting fire to their contracts while sitting through all those shitty third-season eps. But there were enough strong stories to make clear what girdered the show's stubbornly stalwart appeal to an audience still swelling more than a decade after the series' brief network lifespan.
Meyer's fresh, non-reverential approach made him exactly the right man for the job of "re-imagining" the TV series while paradoxically remaining faithful to it. He maintained a masterful grip on the proceedings, handling action, suspense, and tragedy with equal aplomb
Sounds like Bennett & Meyer's approach had far more in common with Abrams' than I realized.
if anything that's nearly the polar opposite.
Abrams is a guy that came in with no knowledge of Trek but also felt like adding every element of the show in to the movie as either a wink to the audience or a retread of existing plot points without really understanding their original meaning or creating a satisfying new meaning of his own.
I really liked this movie when I saw it but my opinion is gradually degrading over time as I analyze it
Mostly because it was just a half decent summer action flick and it could have been truly great if they hadn't very poorly made the whole thing one big "homage"
with the 'Lazarus of the week' telegraphed I doubt anyone was really all that surprised at the twist. So without the 'homage' element it was just going through the paces at the end.
with the 'Lazarus of the week' telegraphed I doubt anyone was really all that surprised at the twist. So without the 'homage' element it was just going through the paces at the end.
This is how I felt as well. We had an hour of a really good movie, some of a slightly less good movie, and a kind of silly ending
Wrath of Khan is more or less responsible for a lot of later Trek cliches such as exploding consoles and the more naval feel the rest of the series had.
It's also a masterpiece on how to make a summer blockbuster on a budget.
I really liked this movie when I saw it but my opinion is gradually degrading over time as I analyze it
Mostly because it was just a half decent summer action flick and it could have been truly great if they hadn't very poorly made the whole thing one big "homage"
I think this is important. Most Star Trek fans don't really want Into Darkness to be just as good as any other summer blockbuster, or even a superior summer blockbuster. There's no Star Trek on TV any more; this is it, the entire franchise. The TNG movies may have been ass, but the entire franchise didn't rely on their being great; there was still other Star Trek to be had, and anticipation of more.
If this is all the Star Trek I'm getting, I kinda need it to be more than just some summer movie. Like, I could tolerate a horrible TNG/DS9 episode once in a while, because most episodes were good, but I still hate Voyager, and Enterprise even more. Not necessarily because Enterprise is worse than Voyager - I'm not even sure how to start that comparison - but because Enterprise was it. It was all this promise, all these expectations, all our hopes, and it didn't follow through. And now that it's gone, it's hard not to hate it even more for "killing" the franchise.
I'm thinking that In Darkness might be a perfectly serviceable movie, but maybe it's not - to some people - what the Star Trek franchise should be, where it should be going. When they say, "It's not Star Trek," I don't think they mean that it's worse than everything Star Trek ever or that it's too reboot-y or mass audience appeal. I think they're looking for the things they loved about Star Trek and not finding it. I think for most people, the best Star Trek moments they remember are the quiet ones, when Sisko decides that he'd do it again, when Picard admits that he really did see five lights, when Marritza finally breaks down in the cell, when the beast at Tanagra, Uzani, his army, Shaka when the walls fell, when Ensign Lavelle announces his promotion.
Yeah, TOS was always a bit more slapstick and action-based, but my vision of the Star Trek franchise isn't for it to go the way of Transformers or X-Men or Iron Man. But to a certain extent, that was always the way it was going to go once it came back in movie form, I realise now.... All Good Things... isn't a story that can be told nowadays as a major motion picture.
hippofant on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If that is what Star Trek fans are feeling they need to get over it. These movies aren't going to be TNG.
Do you mean The Culture book series? And do you mean to suggest that HBO should do the series, or that HBO has done the series? (If it's the latter, my google fu skills are failing me!)
No, they haven't. If they had, you would have been able to hear my shouts of joy from where you are.
(Seriously, I've been advocating a TV series of the Culture, or a far-future version of Star Trek that's basically the same thing, for a while now)
If that is what Star Trek fans are feeling they need to get over it. These movies aren't going to be TNG.
To early to tell that. Its possible the movies will explore other eras whether its new or rebooted versions of prior concepts (Deep Space 9, TNG etc).
I would pay 3D price to see the Dominion War in modern CGI. I mean, I fully expect I'll have to bring earplugs for every time people start talking, but that's how I got through Nemesis.
Of course, my understanding is Abrams is now off of Star Trek because he got the chance to do Star Wars (which he says he knows and loves, so he can't be any worse than Lucas... Right? ...Guys?). So the next Star Trek movie is more of a wildcard than Into Darkness, because who knows who'll be at the helm.
So I saw Into Darkness last night and had a lot of fun! It wasn't an incredible movie, sure, but it was exciting and entertaining. Lots of great fan service too.
Is that the wrong opinion to have? I heard I should dislike it.
I wouldn't say so! I enjoyed it while I was there and my parents want to see it, which I think they should because they'll enjoy it too. But I also found I left the cinema with the nagging feeling that something was wrong (same as I had with Prometheus) and so I start picking at it in my head, which caused the film to unravel for me. It's very hard not to sound superior when talking about problems I have with a film, like I think I'm so great for finding flaws in something you enjoyed, but really, that's just the way I work. Everyone's free to enjoy what they do, yo.
I felt the opposite. Prometheus kicked me out of that "I'm invested in this movie" trance about half-way through when it goes really fucking stupid and random. STID felt more like The Dark Knight or something, where you can pick apart bits afterwards if you really want, but at the time it all works and I left the theatre feeling good about the whole thing. As the movie played, it never broke my investment in it, even if perhaps some parts afterwards weren't as completely clear as they seemed at the time.
There's no reason to go back and pick apart a movie only after the fact, even though that's the internets favourite passtime because it's full of wankers.
So I saw Into Darkness last night and had a lot of fun! It wasn't an incredible movie, sure, but it was exciting and entertaining. Lots of great fan service too.
Is that the wrong opinion to have? I heard I should dislike it.
I wouldn't say so! I enjoyed it while I was there and my parents want to see it, which I think they should because they'll enjoy it too. But I also found I left the cinema with the nagging feeling that something was wrong (same as I had with Prometheus) and so I start picking at it in my head, which caused the film to unravel for me. It's very hard not to sound superior when talking about problems I have with a film, like I think I'm so great for finding flaws in something you enjoyed, but really, that's just the way I work. Everyone's free to enjoy what they do, yo.
I felt the opposite. Prometheus kicked me out of that "I'm invested in this movie" trance about half-way through when it goes really fucking stupid and random. STID felt more like The Dark Knight or something, where you can pick apart bits afterwards if you really want, but at the time it all works and I left the theatre feeling good about the whole thing. As the movie played, it never broke my investment in it, even if perhaps some parts afterwards weren't as completely clear as they seemed at the time.
There's no reason to go back and pick apart a movie only after the fact, even though that's the internets favourite passtime because it's full of wankers.
I left Into Darkness with mixed feelings. It was a serviceable movie and better than the prior Trek flick in a lot of ways but there were a few things that stuck out to me as really wrong and even at that point I really didn't think using that villain was a good idea. But then those few, nagging threads that you just can't help but tug on I of course had to yank on and then the entire movie unraveled. From there the more I thought about the movie the madder I got at it. I'm ok with Trek movies being fun, action adventure movies but I don't like being treated as if I was some sort of Trekky equivalent of a slavering otaku dipshit that's hungry for as much fanservice as possible. Write your script at something other than a pandering, pimply teenager, fan fiction level and I'll be happy because every other aspect is getting nailed beautifully. Also, stop letting Damon Lindelof anywhere near a script. That guy is a complete hack.
So I saw Into Darkness last night and had a lot of fun! It wasn't an incredible movie, sure, but it was exciting and entertaining. Lots of great fan service too.
Is that the wrong opinion to have? I heard I should dislike it.
Nope! This is a movie that I think both sides are correct on. Yes, it is a fun, well shot, well acted movie and highly entertaining. However, it a giant piece of plot hole swiss cheese and if you're a trekky you're probably gonna get your pants in a twist over
the constant riffing on Star Trek 2 and 3.
This is a divisive movie but one in which I think everyone is right about for their own, perfectly valid reasons which is kind of...weird.
As a Trekkie-I-Guess, at least as someone who watched TNG and DS9 and even most of Voyager at one point of another and just saw the original film trilogy (2-4) a few weeks ago,
I didn't find any of the homages annoying at all.
The big yell of "Khan!!!" aside (which everyone had a laugh about in the theatre) the rest worked fine without pulling me out of the movie because they'd been repurposed within the script.
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Ethics of Star Trek Time!
Spoilers for movie of course.
So we have 1 murderer/terrorist (with extenuating circumstances?) and 72 people that were tried by a foreign government (probably the best description?)
And at the end, they just get left frozen in a warehouse forever.
And we even have a medical procedure to harvest blood from Khan (potentially) against his will!
-
Now they didn't actually show or hint at consent from Khan. Would he consent? I'm not sure actually, but I'm leaning to no. He seemed a bit spiteful in this one (Thought that might be because he's British)
Trial for Khan? The tone of the movie didn't suggest this, but I can see that freezing him again could be a trial handed-down sentence, especially if he requested it.
Not so sure about his crew, since they didn't actually do anything.
So we have 1 murderer/terrorist (with extenuating circumstances?) and 72 people that were tried by a foreign government (probably the best description?)
And at the end, they just get left frozen in a warehouse forever.
And we even have a medical procedure to harvest blood from Khan (potentially) against his will!
-
Now they didn't actually show or hint at consent from Khan. Would he consent? I'm not sure actually, but I'm leaning to no. He seemed a bit spiteful in this one (Thought that might be because he's British)
Trial for Khan? The tone of the movie didn't suggest this, but I can see that freezing him again could be a trial handed-down sentence, especially if he requested it.
Not so sure about his crew, since they didn't actually do anything.
Being genetically engineered is illegal in the Federation, so I could see them simply not waking the supersoldiers. There are Cold Stations within Earth space that keep frozen embryos from the Eugenics War on ice as well.
So we have 1 murderer/terrorist (with extenuating circumstances?) and 72 people that were tried by a foreign government (probably the best description?)
And at the end, they just get left frozen in a warehouse forever.
And we even have a medical procedure to harvest blood from Khan (potentially) against his will!
-
Now they didn't actually show or hint at consent from Khan. Would he consent? I'm not sure actually, but I'm leaning to no. He seemed a bit spiteful in this one (Thought that might be because he's British)
Trial for Khan? The tone of the movie didn't suggest this, but I can see that freezing him again could be a trial handed-down sentence, especially if he requested it.
Not so sure about his crew, since they didn't actually do anything.
Being genetically engineered is illegal in the Federation, so I could see them simply not waking the supersoldiers. There are Cold Stations within Earth space that keep frozen embryos from the Eugenics War on ice as well.
Genetically engineering people is illegal, being engineered isn't.
They're not going to freeze Bashir just because he's a GELF.
They are however all wanted war criminals, but then you'd have to have known about trek to know that since the movie said nothing much about it.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
So we have 1 murderer/terrorist (with extenuating circumstances?) and 72 people that were tried by a foreign government (probably the best description?)
And at the end, they just get left frozen in a warehouse forever.
And we even have a medical procedure to harvest blood from Khan (potentially) against his will!
-
Now they didn't actually show or hint at consent from Khan. Would he consent? I'm not sure actually, but I'm leaning to no. He seemed a bit spiteful in this one (Thought that might be because he's British)
Trial for Khan? The tone of the movie didn't suggest this, but I can see that freezing him again could be a trial handed-down sentence, especially if he requested it.
Not so sure about his crew, since they didn't actually do anything.
Being genetically engineered is illegal in the Federation, so I could see them simply not waking the supersoldiers. There are Cold Stations within Earth space that keep frozen embryos from the Eugenics War on ice as well.
Was this addressed in Space Seed or WoK at all? Can't recall.
(also ignoring the few inconsistent episodes, from TNG I think?)
I can see making current experiments and results illegal. But not freezing the conscious result of that.
And definitely not against 72 people that were engineered before it was illegal (grandfather clause?) and maybe against their will. Embryos I can understand.
There's a few episodes in TNG, and Voyager, about them debating similar situations about being able to choose your own destiny unburdened by your origins.
So we have 1 murderer/terrorist (with extenuating circumstances?) and 72 people that were tried by a foreign government (probably the best description?)
And at the end, they just get left frozen in a warehouse forever.
And we even have a medical procedure to harvest blood from Khan (potentially) against his will!
-
Now they didn't actually show or hint at consent from Khan. Would he consent? I'm not sure actually, but I'm leaning to no. He seemed a bit spiteful in this one (Thought that might be because he's British)
Trial for Khan? The tone of the movie didn't suggest this, but I can see that freezing him again could be a trial handed-down sentence, especially if he requested it.
Not so sure about his crew, since they didn't actually do anything.
Being genetically engineered is illegal in the Federation, so I could see them simply not waking the supersoldiers. There are Cold Stations within Earth space that keep frozen embryos from the Eugenics War on ice as well.
Contains DS9 spoilers as well.
Genetically engineering people is illegal, being engineered isn't.
They're not going to freeze Bashir just because he's a GELF.
They are however all wanted war criminals, but then you'd have to have known about trek to know that since the movie said nothing much about it.
Are they though?
The war was fought ages ago, by a different government. Different times, different laws.
I really should get around to finishing DS9. Only did the half of the first season and a couple of random episodes from later ones.
Posts
You're right, in all honesty.
Really when I think about it, I loved the Khan reveal. That surprised and interested me. And I liked seeing the Enterprise, and Earth, and Star Fleet and the rest. The action and space battles were also pretty sweet. And the plot and story itself was interesting. When I really think about it, it's that damnned engine room scene that bothers me. Which really isn't enough to condemn the whole movie.
Personally, I agree with you. I think the time travel bits were the weakest parts of the 09 Star Trek. I feel like if they had just said, "Yeah, it's a total reboot, like Batman Begins. Get over it." fans would have been cool with it.
But whatev's. What's done is done I guess.
And also maybe cut some of the ending chase/fight so there's less time between Kirk gone and "We can rebuild him. We have the technology magic-blood." I don't know, at that point it's all too set up for the Spock/Khan fight to have any real tension to it, even if thematically it's a great addition.
And yeah, the Khan scream, for anyone who knows their pop-culture, is just too iconic to not be funny rather than moving. Should have gone for a different delivery. I think a soft but really fucking angry sounding "Khan" from SPock would have done the trick.
I'm sorry but you have the entire premise of Friday the 13th series completely wrong: The premise is "Individual has some sort of ancient evil artifact that turns murder into money/youth, and here is this motley crew of antique shop employees trying to capture said artifact again." Every. Single. Episode.
Some of the more ridiculous ones:
A teapot that keeps a singer youtheful. Her hit song? Why, the royalty free "I'm a little teapot" done in an 80's punk way
Wood chipper that shoots out dollar bills yall when fed legs, arms and everything inbetween.
The lighthouse light that vaporizes people. With a ghostly rowboat and whose occupant drops of doubloons after a successful murder.
Uh.
Kay.
Not sure how the premise you just described is any different than how I described it, beyond the obvious complaint of bad writing.
To me the premise is "How fucking ridiculous can we make this object from the prop department in terms of death"
It's an ancient show that nobody watched and isn't in syndication. I didn't realize I needed to describe it accurately beyond "Warehouse 13 reminds me of it because <team> <collects artifact of the week> + <danger>"
it's silly, sometimes stupid, but the cast is lovable and often awesome, and there seems to be some sort of overarching mystery going on.. not to forget the really really fun references (and more..) to historic characters
I WATCHED IT! I WAS THERE!
waiting for the next disc to show up. That fucking show is also so goddamn Canadian.
Is that the wrong opinion to have? I heard I should dislike it.
You monster. You're worse than
I wouldn't say so! I enjoyed it while I was there and my parents want to see it, which I think they should because they'll enjoy it too. But I also found I left the cinema with the nagging feeling that something was wrong (same as I had with Prometheus) and so I start picking at it in my head, which caused the film to unravel for me. It's very hard not to sound superior when talking about problems I have with a film, like I think I'm so great for finding flaws in something you enjoyed, but really, that's just the way I work. Everyone's free to enjoy what they do, yo.
Sounds like Bennett & Meyer's approach had far more in common with Abrams' than I realized.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Surprisingly, there are people who don't think much of that.
Oh totally. There are so many problems with the plot, but I don't really care. It was fun!
Of course, I wish something could come back like TNG, but I'll take what we got if it gets people interested in Star Trek.
Abrams is a guy that came in with no knowledge of Trek but also felt like adding every element of the show in to the movie as either a wink to the audience or a retread of existing plot points without really understanding their original meaning or creating a satisfying new meaning of his own.
Mostly because it was just a half decent summer action flick and it could have been truly great if they hadn't very poorly made the whole thing one big "homage"
the audience laughed in the theater I was in when Spock shouted "KHAAAAAN"
This is how I felt as well. We had an hour of a really good movie, some of a slightly less good movie, and a kind of silly ending
It's also a masterpiece on how to make a summer blockbuster on a budget.
I think this is important. Most Star Trek fans don't really want Into Darkness to be just as good as any other summer blockbuster, or even a superior summer blockbuster. There's no Star Trek on TV any more; this is it, the entire franchise. The TNG movies may have been ass, but the entire franchise didn't rely on their being great; there was still other Star Trek to be had, and anticipation of more.
If this is all the Star Trek I'm getting, I kinda need it to be more than just some summer movie. Like, I could tolerate a horrible TNG/DS9 episode once in a while, because most episodes were good, but I still hate Voyager, and Enterprise even more. Not necessarily because Enterprise is worse than Voyager - I'm not even sure how to start that comparison - but because Enterprise was it. It was all this promise, all these expectations, all our hopes, and it didn't follow through. And now that it's gone, it's hard not to hate it even more for "killing" the franchise.
I'm thinking that In Darkness might be a perfectly serviceable movie, but maybe it's not - to some people - what the Star Trek franchise should be, where it should be going. When they say, "It's not Star Trek," I don't think they mean that it's worse than everything Star Trek ever or that it's too reboot-y or mass audience appeal. I think they're looking for the things they loved about Star Trek and not finding it. I think for most people, the best Star Trek moments they remember are the quiet ones, when Sisko decides that he'd do it again, when Picard admits that he really did see five lights, when Marritza finally breaks down in the cell, when the beast at Tanagra, Uzani, his army, Shaka when the walls fell, when Ensign Lavelle announces his promotion.
Yeah, TOS was always a bit more slapstick and action-based, but my vision of the Star Trek franchise isn't for it to go the way of Transformers or X-Men or Iron Man. But to a certain extent, that was always the way it was going to go once it came back in movie form, I realise now.... All Good Things... isn't a story that can be told nowadays as a major motion picture.
No, they haven't. If they had, you would have been able to hear my shouts of joy from where you are.
(Seriously, I've been advocating a TV series of the Culture, or a far-future version of Star Trek that's basically the same thing, for a while now)
To early to tell that. Its possible the movies will explore other eras whether its new or rebooted versions of prior concepts (Deep Space 9, TNG etc).
I would pay 3D price to see the Dominion War in modern CGI. I mean, I fully expect I'll have to bring earplugs for every time people start talking, but that's how I got through Nemesis.
Of course, my understanding is Abrams is now off of Star Trek because he got the chance to do Star Wars (which he says he knows and loves, so he can't be any worse than Lucas... Right? ...Guys?). So the next Star Trek movie is more of a wildcard than Into Darkness, because who knows who'll be at the helm.
I felt the opposite. Prometheus kicked me out of that "I'm invested in this movie" trance about half-way through when it goes really fucking stupid and random. STID felt more like The Dark Knight or something, where you can pick apart bits afterwards if you really want, but at the time it all works and I left the theatre feeling good about the whole thing. As the movie played, it never broke my investment in it, even if perhaps some parts afterwards weren't as completely clear as they seemed at the time.
There's no reason to go back and pick apart a movie only after the fact, even though that's the internets favourite passtime because it's full of wankers.
I left Into Darkness with mixed feelings. It was a serviceable movie and better than the prior Trek flick in a lot of ways but there were a few things that stuck out to me as really wrong and even at that point I really didn't think using that villain was a good idea. But then those few, nagging threads that you just can't help but tug on I of course had to yank on and then the entire movie unraveled. From there the more I thought about the movie the madder I got at it. I'm ok with Trek movies being fun, action adventure movies but I don't like being treated as if I was some sort of Trekky equivalent of a slavering otaku dipshit that's hungry for as much fanservice as possible. Write your script at something other than a pandering, pimply teenager, fan fiction level and I'll be happy because every other aspect is getting nailed beautifully. Also, stop letting Damon Lindelof anywhere near a script. That guy is a complete hack.
Nope! This is a movie that I think both sides are correct on. Yes, it is a fun, well shot, well acted movie and highly entertaining. However, it a giant piece of plot hole swiss cheese and if you're a trekky you're probably gonna get your pants in a twist over
The big yell of "Khan!!!" aside (which everyone had a laugh about in the theatre) the rest worked fine without pulling me out of the movie because they'd been repurposed within the script.
Spoilers for movie of course.
And at the end, they just get left frozen in a warehouse forever.
And we even have a medical procedure to harvest blood from Khan (potentially) against his will!
-
Now they didn't actually show or hint at consent from Khan. Would he consent? I'm not sure actually, but I'm leaning to no. He seemed a bit spiteful in this one (Thought that might be because he's British)
Trial for Khan? The tone of the movie didn't suggest this, but I can see that freezing him again could be a trial handed-down sentence, especially if he requested it.
Not so sure about his crew, since they didn't actually do anything.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
They're not going to freeze Bashir just because he's a GELF.
They are however all wanted war criminals, but then you'd have to have known about trek to know that since the movie said nothing much about it.
(also ignoring the few inconsistent episodes, from TNG I think?)
I can see making current experiments and results illegal. But not freezing the conscious result of that.
And definitely not against 72 people that were engineered before it was illegal (grandfather clause?) and maybe against their will. Embryos I can understand.
There's a few episodes in TNG, and Voyager, about them debating similar situations about being able to choose your own destiny unburdened by your origins.
The war was fought ages ago, by a different government. Different times, different laws.
I really should get around to finishing DS9. Only did the half of the first season and a couple of random episodes from later ones.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious