STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10844
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 29, 2013 7:10 pm UTC

keozen wrote:The bits of the Star Trek that people are complaining are missed out of the film, the more intelligent bits, the clever plots about ethics and morality...... they've pretty much always been missing from the films.


I actually kind of liked the film, but one thing that irked me is that they entirely sidestepped any morality of just keeping all the people on ice(including the villain). Without trial, even. It'd been made kind of a point earlier in the movie, and it felt odd for it to just vanish. So...killing a person is bad, and letting him go free is also bad, but by keeping him on ice indefinitely, aren't we just punting that decision into the future?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed May 29, 2013 7:12 pm UTC

Solving the problem once and for all!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Vieto
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Vieto » Wed May 29, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Solving the problem once and for all!

Exactly. The public doesn't know about them, and they can't even go on hunger strike!
a.k.a. Cazador

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby keozen » Wed May 29, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

Didn't the sign on the storage room they put them in read "in case we ever can't think of a plot for a new sequel".
Image

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed May 29, 2013 11:39 pm UTC

Eh, freezing themselves was their choice in the first place, so it's not that big of an ethical stretch to put them back in the freezer
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3649
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby eSOANEM » Wed May 29, 2013 11:59 pm UTC

keozen wrote:The bits of the Star Trek that people are complaining are missed out of the film, the more intelligent bits, the clever plots about ethics and morality...... they've pretty much always been missing from the films. Star Trek is not made for film, it doesn't work on film nearly as well as it does on TV. Star Trek on film gave us talking whales, the head of god past "the galactic core", an intelligent version of a dumb 80s probe come to destroy the world and turned the intelligent, thoughtful, tactful Picard into a phaser rifle toting action hero wannabe who doesn't seem to remember what the prime directive is one minute to the next.


What about the undiscovered country (or the wrath of khan for that matter)?
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby keozen » Thu May 30, 2013 11:42 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
keozen wrote:The bits of the Star Trek that people are complaining are missed out of the film, the more intelligent bits, the clever plots about ethics and morality...... they've pretty much always been missing from the films. Star Trek is not made for film, it doesn't work on film nearly as well as it does on TV. Star Trek on film gave us talking whales, the head of god past "the galactic core", an intelligent version of a dumb 80s probe come to destroy the world and turned the intelligent, thoughtful, tactful Picard into a phaser rifle toting action hero wannabe who doesn't seem to remember what the prime directive is one minute to the next.


What about the undiscovered country (or the wrath of khan for that matter)?

Both of those were "better" but still not as thought provoking as the series can be.
Image

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3649
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby eSOANEM » Thu May 30, 2013 1:52 pm UTC

I think you might be suffering from selection bias when it comes to the show. I got through about half a season of TOS before deciding that I had yet to come across anything remotely approaching good and most of it was so unbearably awful (at least, when taken seriously) that I had to give up. I've now almost finished the first season of TNG and, whilst it certainly is less action hero-y than most of the films is not really that much more thought-provoking (most of the 'philosophical' bits were just repeating the same bits of over-done pop-philosophy over and over again).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby keozen » Thu May 30, 2013 3:16 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:I think you might be suffering from selection bias when it comes to the show. I got through about half a season of TOS before deciding that I had yet to come across anything remotely approaching good and most of it was so unbearably awful (at least, when taken seriously) that I had to give up. I've now almost finished the first season of TNG and, whilst it certainly is less action hero-y than most of the films is not really that much more thought-provoking (most of the 'philosophical' bits were just repeating the same bits of over-done pop-philosophy over and over again).

Pretty much every Star Trek series has taken 2-3 seasons to "hit it's stride". People joke about it but there's such a thing as the "beard rule". TNG gets good as soon as Riker has had his beard for a few episodes and DS9 gets good when Sisko's hair migrates from his head to his chin. Voyager I have mixed feelings on and Enterprise started to get good just before they canned it.
Image

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3649
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby eSOANEM » Thu May 30, 2013 4:39 pm UTC

That's fair enough. My point is though that the show is not as good as you seem to remember it being. There are very significant proportions of it which are just as bad as the odd numbered films if not worse (in fact, the 2-3 seasons rule of thumb is almost exactly equivalent (even in terms of proportion) to the even numbered films rule).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10844
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 30, 2013 7:32 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Eh, freezing themselves was their choice in the first place, so it's not that big of an ethical stretch to put them back in the freezer


Was it their choice? There's a lot of conflicting information given as to their backstory, and it's all given by either the admiral or Khan himself, both of which are actively lying and giving somewhat differing accounts. I mean, they KNOW Kahn was a killer, but they're insisting on bringing him back for trial. All these corpsescles? Only an ethical concern when it involves destroying them, then we promptly ignore 'em.

I do agree that yes, the actual purpose is an obvious sequel setup, though.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6189
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Jorpho » Fri May 31, 2013 5:46 am UTC

An entertaining film on the whole, and one that held together substantially better than the first. But the transwarp teleportation thing is indeed a Rather Big Stupid, I think. The other thing I couldn't get is:
Spoiler:
Why did they put the other guys in the torpedoes again? I mean, if they were supposed to die, it's pretty easy to kill something suspended in a cryotube, I would think.

At first, I thought: "Oh! They're using them as some kind of mentally-powered guidance systems, since they're these fancy long-range undetectable assassin torpedoes." But even that would have been a stretch.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Angua » Fri May 31, 2013 6:36 am UTC

Spoiler:
Khan put them in the torpedoes. I'm not sure 100% sure why, but I think he thought if they couldn't find them (and they wouldn't think to look inside the torpedoes) then he could get away without them being able to blackmail him any more.

No one has explained how they crash into Earth from the middle of space to me yet (not to mention, the lack of space ships and stuff around Earth that could have presumably helped them not crash, or at least transported them out). Is that because it's really obvious to everyone else and I'm missing something?
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6189
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Jorpho » Fri May 31, 2013 6:41 am UTC

Angua wrote:
Spoiler:
Khan put them in the torpedoes. I'm not sure 100% sure why, but I think he thought if they couldn't find them (and they wouldn't think to look inside the torpedoes) then he could get away without them being able to blackmail him any more.
This makes my head hurt. Not as much as some of the stuff from the first film, but nonetheless.

Spoiler:
No one has explained how they crash into Earth from the middle of space to me yet (not to mention, the lack of space ships and stuff around Earth that could have presumably helped them not crash, or at least transported them out). Is that because it's really obvious to everyone else and I'm missing something?
That was a little odd as well. But then, the bit at the start of the movie was presumably the senior officers in charge of all the vessels in the sector, so perhaps that was sufficiently disruptive as to prevent any vessel from being conveniently around?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3357
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Fri May 31, 2013 11:46 am UTC

In JJ Abram's Trek, Earth, despite being the home of Starfleet Academy and at least one major construction yard is not a major fleet base, and does not have any sort of fleet presence, despite being a darker, edgier, more warlike Federation than Roddenberry's Trek...

From which we can conclude that if we ever have to fight a war, we want JJ Abrams in charge of the other side - send one starship on a roundabout route with a big glowing red ball to distract him, and meanwhile the rest of our fleet pops over to capture the enemy flag almost unopposed...

adieutenant
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 10:17 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby adieutenant » Fri May 31, 2013 1:08 pm UTC

I enjoyed the film, Quinto was great, Cumberbatch was cool, but I just wish they hadn't used Khan. They obscured it and made it a big twist, but I kind of found it impossible to care.

Cumberbatch would have been a good Khan if he actually did anything Khan-ey, or had any backstory that wasn't just thrown off to the side. I wish they'd actually gone into his ideologies and junk. Doesn't have to be as in-depth as TOS, just has to be there.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby maybeagnostic » Fri May 31, 2013 6:05 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
Spoiler:
No one has explained how they crash into Earth from the middle of space to me yet (not to mention, the lack of space ships and stuff around Earth that could have presumably helped them not crash, or at least transported them out). Is that because it's really obvious to everyone else and I'm missing something?

Spoiler:
Why was the Enterprise under water instead of in orbit? Why did they send Spock in a shuttle into the volcano if they could just teleport in/out of it? Why did that guy blow up the research center after his daughter was cured? Why did the brass gather in an unprotected room when people as far back as the original show use telecommunication to send critical information and give important orders? Why did Khan even have access to his... whatever they were? Why didn't the Admiral let someone look inside the torpedoes if he himself had no idea what was in them? Why did Khan not wait for the war with the Klingons to start and then take control while Starfleet is too busy to oppose him and desperately needs his skills and intellect? Why was Khan even stupidly evil when his abilities can get him unlimited amounts of respect, wealth, and sympathy with seemingly little effort?...

"The script said so" is the only explanation for almost everything that happens in this movie. Reminds me of Looper- I really enjoyed it while I was watching it and then got increasingly disappointed the more I though about what actually happened.

But, just for the fun of it, here's my theory for why no one was around to help out in the final fight- Earth doesn't actually have any interstellar spaceships. We saw how all but one of the super expensive spaceships built for Starfleet were destroyed in the first movie and that blow actually turned popular opinion against space exploration. Correspondingly, funding for Starfleet was drastically cut and the Admiral diverted the little remaining money into building exorbitantly expensive docks and warships on the other side of Saturn which is why during the movie the only FTL capable starships in the solar system are the two having the fight. There are shuttles and other spaceships incapable of FTL around but they don't have the ridiculously complex sensor arrays that all Starfleet ships are equipped with and therefore no one even noticed the battle. Despite the way the movie makes it seem, Khan's ship actually took several days to fall to Earth while the Enterprise crew were desperately trying to fix up their own ship.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3357
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Fri May 31, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Spoiler:
But, just for the fun of it, here's my theory for why no one was around to help out in the final fight- Earth doesn't actually have any interstellar spaceships. We saw how all but one of the super expensive spaceships built for Starfleet were destroyed in the first movie and that blow actually turned popular opinion against space exploration. Correspondingly, funding for Starfleet was drastically cut and the Admiral diverted the little remaining money into building exorbitantly expensive docks and warships on the other side of Saturn which is why during the movie the only FTL capable starships in the solar system are the two having the fight. There are shuttles and other spaceships incapable of FTL around but they don't have the ridiculously complex sensor arrays that all Starfleet ships are equipped with and therefore no one even noticed the battle. Despite the way the movie makes it seem, Khan's ship actually took several days to fall to Earth while the Enterprise crew were desperately trying to fix up their own ship.


That doesn't explain the Laurentian System - where most of StarFleet supposedly was when Vulcan called for help in the first movie, and where Spock wanted to take the Enterprise.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Angua » Fri May 31, 2013 7:44 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Also, no one has explained how they got from the fire-fight against the other ship in the middle of space after they were shot out of warp, to both ships crashing into Earth's atmosphere :P
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby UniqueScreenname » Fri May 31, 2013 8:12 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Remember the part where they attempted to run away in warp and the other ship caught up to them? At that point they went from Kronos to almost Earth.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Angua » Fri May 31, 2013 8:36 pm UTC

Spoiler:
I thought they went from Kronos to not-so-close to Earth rather than almost. If they were near enough that they could crash so easily, I would have thought it was close enough :s
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby maybeagnostic » Fri May 31, 2013 10:13 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:That doesn't explain the Laurentian System - where most of StarFleet supposedly was when Vulcan called for help in the first movie, and where Spock wanted to take the Enterprise.

Well, clearly, whatever and wherever the Laurentian System is, those Starfleet ships are still there. :)

Angua wrote:
Spoiler:
I thought they went from Kronos to not-so-close to Earth rather than almost. If they were near enough that they could crash so easily, I would have thought it was close enough :s

I think the idea was that they dropped out of warp halfway through and somehow ended up within the Moon's orbit. Then neither the Moon nor Earth was visible because... um, camera angles?
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6189
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Jorpho » Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:46 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:From which we can conclude that if we ever have to fight a war, we want JJ Abrams in charge of the other side - send one starship on a roundabout route with a big glowing red ball to distract him, and meanwhile the rest of our fleet pops over to capture the enemy flag almost unopposed...
Shhh, you might give someone an idea for the next Star Wars movie.

maybeagnostic wrote:
Spoiler:
Why was the Enterprise under water instead of in orbit? Why did they send Spock in a shuttle into the volcano if they could just teleport in/out of it? Why did that guy blow up the research center after his daughter was cured? Why did the brass gather in an unprotected room when people as far back as the original show use telecommunication to send critical information and give important orders? Why did Khan even have access to his... whatever they were? Why didn't the Admiral let someone look inside the torpedoes if he himself had no idea what was in them? Why did Khan not wait for the war with the Klingons to start and then take control while Starfleet is too busy to oppose him and desperately needs his skills and intellect? Why was Khan even stupidly evil when his abilities can get him unlimited amounts of respect, wealth, and sympathy with seemingly little effort?...
Eh, some of it ain't so bad.
Spoiler:
They were there to observe the indigenous species and it was easier to do that from the surface for some reason. They could only teleport Spock in and out of the volcano while the Enterprise was within line-of-sight, and they were hoping to avoid exposing the Enterprise because of the Prime Directive and such. He certainly wouldn't blow up the research center for nothing before actually seeing his daughter be cured. The brass likes the personal touch? Khan had access to lots of fancy hi-tech weaponry. I thought the Admiral did know what was inside the torpedoes? Khan was something of a war criminal in the Eugenics Wars – that was why he and his crew were frozen and floating in deep space in the first place – and presumably was kept on a short leash, such that any overt attempt to seize power would probably have gone over badly; this is definitely something that was kind of skimmed over.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Vaniver » Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:25 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Eh, freezing themselves was their choice in the first place, so it's not that big of an ethical stretch to put them back in the freezer
They lost the war for Earth, and so they froze themselves on a pre-warp colony ship pointed at a distant planet.

Then, oops, warp technology. They're still on their long journey someplace else, and Markus decides to find the ship in deep space and bring them in.

maybeagnostic:
Spoiler:
maybeagnostic wrote:Why did that guy blow up the research center after his daughter was cured?
Because otherwise Khan will murder him and his family. Khan was pretty sure he would make the trade knowing his daughter was safe, and wouldn't make it otherwise.

maybeagnostic wrote:Why didn't the Admiral let someone look inside the torpedoes if he himself had no idea what was in them?
The Admiral knew what was in them. Khan was trying to sneak them out, and he got caught; the Admiral decided to murder him with his own crew torpedos, because that's fitting and that covers the Admiral's tracks. (He no longer needs Khan now that he has the ship.)

maybeagnostic wrote:Why did Khan not wait for the war with the Klingons to start and then take control while Starfleet is too busy to oppose him and desperately needs his skills and intellect?
Because Khan knew that the Admiral would kill Khan and his crew as soon as possible, because they're a liability, and was trying to avoid that.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Adacore » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:29 am UTC

I enjoyed the movie, I really like the cast - they're very good actors, it was a fun ride, and Abrams has always had an eye for good cinematography, especially in sci-fi stuff. However, the plot holes were many, and big enough to fly an armada of Borg cubes through.

Spoiler:
As other have said - gathering the Starfleet top leadership in one room makes absolutely no sense at the best of times. Placing that gathering in a completely exposed office in a skyscraper rather than some fortified bunker or space station makes even less sense. But it's perhaps the single most idiotic thing you can do in response to a terrorist attack on a Starfleet base by a known hyper-intelligent insider who is still at large. Every military in the world has rules saying the entire top command can't be in the same place at the same time, I would imagine.

I actually thought as soon as the gathering was mentioned that it was a really obvious target, but then dismissed those concerns because surely the plot couldn't be that ridiculously telegraphed.

Similarly, with the telegraphing, people keep going on about how this warship Starfleet has been building can be flown by a minimal queue - as few as one. Then they immediately send the one man they don't want to have a giant warship onto the warship. At least Kirk figures out that that's his plan, I guess.

The main plot holes, of course, all stem from something that has been a problem with Star Trek for so long that everyone is perfectly capable of suspension of disbelief. Namely, that they keep sending senior officers on dangerous away missions which could be perfectly well handled by more junior and/or specialist crew.

I felt like I was missing a lot of references and in-jokes, too, having never seen Wrath of Khan. I got a lot of stuff (I remember Section 31 from the plot arc expansion it was given in DS9, for example), but I'm sure there was loads I missed. This did feel like more of a Star Trek homage than the last movie, kinda in the vein of Skyfall.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5750
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Angua » Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:25 am UTC

Spoiler:
A lot of the ending was Wrath of Khan, but they switched around Kirk and Spock's roles.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:01 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Spoiler:
maybeagnostic wrote:Why did that guy blow up the research center after his daughter was cured?
Because otherwise Khan will murder him and his family. Khan was pretty sure he would make the trade knowing his daughter was safe, and wouldn't make it otherwise.
Spoiler:
Well, that was implied but they never bothered to explain it. But, seriously, is everyone so terrified of Starfleet officers that they will kill themselves and all their coworkers just based on a threat? Imagine if you started out a movie with a CIA agent ordering a random citizen to blow up their workplace and that person was so terrified of the CIA they automatically complied but then the CIA are the good guys for the rest of the movie.

Vaniver wrote:
Spoiler:
maybeagnostic wrote:Why didn't the Admiral let someone look inside the torpedoes if he himself had no idea what was in them?
The Admiral knew what was in them. Khan was trying to sneak them out, and he got caught; the Admiral decided to murder him with his own crew torpedos, because that's fitting and that covers the Admiral's tracks. (He no longer needs Khan now that he has the ship.)
Spoiler:
He knew Khan's friends were in the torpedoes and that the torpedoes were not armed? He ever told them to use a single torpedo, how does that get rid of the evidence? And why doesn't he get Khan killed and start using one of the other survivors?

Vaniver wrote:
Spoiler:
maybeagnostic wrote:Why did Khan not wait for the war with the Klingons to start and then take control while Starfleet is too busy to oppose him and desperately needs his skills and intellect?
Because Khan knew that the Admiral would kill Khan and his crew as soon as possible, because they're a liability, and was trying to avoid that.

Spoiler:
I guess this depends on knowing more of the story from series/old movies. I certainly never got the impression that the Admiral was anywhere near done with exploiting Khan. Hell, he gave him enough free time to build interstellar pocket transporters and set up a vacation home on the klingon home world. Mostly, the movie made it seem like there was virtually no chance Starfleet would just murder Khan's frozen friends.


Adacore wrote:I felt like I was missing a lot of references and in-jokes
I had that feeling too. A lot of lines in the movies just felt like obvious references but I had no clue what they were referring to.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

Ray Kremer
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Ray Kremer » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:10 pm UTC

keozen wrote:The bits of the Star Trek that people are complaining are missed out of the film, the more intelligent bits, the clever plots about ethics and morality...... they've pretty much always been missing from the films. Star Trek is not made for film, it doesn't work on film nearly as well as it does on TV. Star Trek on film gave us talking whales, the head of god past "the galactic core", an intelligent version of a dumb 80s probe come to destroy the world and turned the intelligent, thoughtful, tactful Picard into a phaser rifle toting action hero wannabe who doesn't seem to remember what the prime directive is one minute to the next.

That's a great point. So many of the best-loved episodes were the quiet, subtle ones that only work on the small screen. Sure, there were the big epic two part episodes too, but once you're talking film it's got to be all big epic all the time, and Trek has trouble keeping that pace up.

(Oddly this is the exact opposite problem from Star Wars, which was created as an epic movie series telling a single story, and it's all the novel and comic book spin-offs that seem out of place somehow. Whereas Trek novels and comic books fit right in because Trek is episodic in nature with many different stories.)

Also, like it or not Trek was BLEEDING fans through many many open wounds by the end of Enterprise. Enterprise gained very few NEW fans and lost a lot of old ones early on who either never came back or only did just in time to see it cancelled.

I blame Voyager. Even if they hadn't screwed it up by ignoring the show premise more often than not and turning the whole thing into a "Saved By The Bell: The New Class"-esque retread of Next Generation, they really should have given it several years before starting up another spin-off series. Audiences had Trek fatigue during Voyager and then they dove straight into Enterprise, which was better but still had its share of "this could've been a TNG or Voyager episode and you'd never know the difference" episodes, including the one that was more or less directly ripped off from a DS9 episode.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

I don't think Insurrection and Nemesis helped either in hobbling the franchise. Nemesis in particular was a real bomb.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:20 am UTC

Why is old Spock so hesitant to tell anything to his younger self, but perfectly willing to share revolutionary technology with the past Federation? I'm pretty sure the ability to beam the distance from Earth to Cronos* is going to have a far more massive impact on history than anything he could tell young Spock.

Then again, I suppose the ripple effect from a major planet like Vulcan being obliterated already guarantees that Alpha Quadrant history will be radically different.

*Being a development based on the equations future Spock gave to Scotty.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:55 am UTC

If for no other reason, I think it's totally reasonable for Future-Spock to not want to be 'that guy from the future who knows stuff'. Everyone would be asking him about the future and what the winning lotto numbers were and what not.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby keozen » Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:29 am UTC

Ray Kremer wrote:I blame Voyager. Even if they hadn't screwed it up by ignoring the show premise more often than not and turning the whole thing into a "Saved By The Bell: The New Class"-esque retread of Next Generation, they really should have given it several years before starting up another spin-off series. Audiences had Trek fatigue during Voyager and then they dove straight into Enterprise, which was better but still had its share of "this could've been a TNG or Voyager episode and you'd never know the difference" episodes, including the one that was more or less directly ripped off from a DS9 episode.


My main problem with Voyager was that it had SO much potential in the story setup. DS9 did great in it's later series with the slightly grittier tone and they shouldn't have shied away from that in Voyager. They're a ship with ZERO support, everything shouldn't be fully working shiny and new looking for the entire trip. They sure as hell shouldn't be able to "build a new state of the art hybrid shuttle/ship from spare parts they have hanging around".

I'm not saying that the entire series should have been like the "Year of Hell" episode, I think that would have been going too far but there needed to have been more struggles than they had by a long way. Things should have carried on from episode to episode. If they're in a fight and a fire breaks out on the bridge I fully expect to still see those scorch marks all over the carpet for a while and when they go away I don't expect to see the same starfleet issue carpet, etc etc.
Image

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Yakk » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:52 pm UTC

I was hoping Voyager would consist of "the fastest way to get home is to build a new federation, and have them help look for a way to connect to home".

Instead, we get a bunch of people applying the prime directive to warp-capable civilizations (sure, I could imagine that the prime directive's meta-feature is "we don't mess with civilizations not capable of messing with us", and distance is sufficient) and deciding "I know, we'll drive towards home, even though it is about a century away, because that sounds like a good plan."

Lots of other stuff gets thrown out, like the idea the crew is a mixture of federation and rebels, within episodes of the show starting.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Chen
Posts: 5434
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:44 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Instead, we get a bunch of people applying the prime directive to warp-capable civilizations


Don't forget the huge inconsistency in her using the Prime Directive to the detriment of her crew and then in the next episode her breaking the Prime Directive so as to save her crew some hardship.

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby keozen » Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:04 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:I was hoping Voyager would consist of "the fastest way to get home is to build a new federation, and have them help look for a way to connect to home".

Instead, we get a bunch of people applying the prime directive to warp-capable civilizations (sure, I could imagine that the prime directive's meta-feature is "we don't mess with civilizations not capable of messing with us", and distance is sufficient) and deciding "I know, we'll drive towards home, even though it is about a century away, because that sounds like a good plan."

Lots of other stuff gets thrown out, like the idea the crew is a mixture of federation and rebels, within episodes of the show starting.


The show could have been finished in episode 1 due to sloppy writing:

Janeway: We could use the Caretaker's array to send us home but we can't let it fall into the hands of the Kazon so we must destroy it.

Tuvok: Captain, may I remind you that I can modify the ship's photon torpedoes to detonate on a delay. Might I suggest beaming our entire compliment over to the array in various locations on a timer, then setting the array to send us home before exploding.

Janeway: Fantastic idea, wow Imagine if we hadn't have thought of that very simple plan and been stuck in this backwater for 7 years!
Image

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Xeio » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:50 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Adacore wrote:I felt like I was missing a lot of references and in-jokes
I had that feeling too. A lot of lines in the movies just felt like obvious references but I had no clue what they were referring to.
I think I got a lot of them, but there were a lot of really overdone ones. Or at least they felt more forced than they did in the last one.
Spoiler:
"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" anyone?

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby UniqueScreenname » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:56 am UTC

Please. People would be so upset if that wasn't in there.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3649
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:32 am UTC

Yeah, I feel like that one was necessary and justified. There were plenty of others which did feel awkward, forced and not quite right.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Zarq » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:14 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:
Adacore wrote:I felt like I was missing a lot of references and in-jokes
I had that feeling too. A lot of lines in the movies just felt like obvious references but I had no clue what they were referring to.
I think I got a lot of them, but there were a lot of really overdone ones. Or at least they felt more forced than they did in the last one.
Spoiler:
"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" anyone?


Agreed.
Spoiler:
That felt more like I was watching Futurama or something.
Or the reviving a Tribble thing. Of all the alien species there are, why a Tribble? Don't they know they're trouble?

I did like the Christine Chapel reference.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

Ray Kremer
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Ray Kremer » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:46 pm UTC

keozen wrote:My main problem with Voyager was that it had SO much potential in the story setup. DS9 did great in it's later series with the slightly grittier tone and they shouldn't have shied away from that in Voyager. They're a ship with ZERO support, everything shouldn't be fully working shiny and new looking for the entire trip. They sure as hell shouldn't be able to "build a new state of the art hybrid shuttle/ship from spare parts they have hanging around".

I'm not saying that the entire series should have been like the "Year of Hell" episode, I think that would have been going too far but there needed to have been more struggles than they had by a long way. Things should have carried on from episode to episode. If they're in a fight and a fire breaks out on the bridge I fully expect to still see those scorch marks all over the carpet for a while and when they go away I don't expect to see the same starfleet issue carpet, etc etc.

Stargate Universe did what Voyager should have been. Even when they were having a good day you still had a looming sense of just how totally screwed they were. Every major premise Voyager set themselves up with (stuck far away from allies and supplies, searching for shortcuts home, half the crew are rebel fighters that really don't like Starfleet) were forgotten very quickly in the first season and only years later given a few episode's worth of lip service once they realized their mistake. Of course maybe the problem there is that even while DS9 was finding its footing in B5-esque serial storytelling, Voyager still clung to the TNG method of standalone episodes with occasional stories that follow directly from something that happened a year prior. Of course this all blew up when Enterprise hit, the first two seasons doing it TNG/Voyager style, the third season doing it DS9/B5 style, and the fourth season going a route of mostly individual multi-episode stories similar to the Cartoon Network Timm-verse Justice League series. Enterprise also failed to be completely convincing, though better at it than Voyager, at the whole "we're out here on our own" stuff.

Xeio wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:
Adacore wrote:I felt like I was missing a lot of references and in-jokes
I had that feeling too. A lot of lines in the movies just felt like obvious references but I had no clue what they were referring to.
I think I got a lot of them, but there were a lot of really overdone ones. Or at least they felt more forced than they did in the last one.
Spoiler:
"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" anyone?

J.J. Abrams should have done for Star Trek what Ronald D. Moore did for Battlestar Galactica. Instead both films so far have their heads so deep up the ass of the original series that they aren't made to be enjoyed by people who haven't seen the original series. When Russell T Davies restarted Doctor Who, he did it as a fresh start but also a continuation of what had gone before, because the format of that show allows you to do that. J.J. Abrams tried to pull that off with Trek but it's not practical for Trek.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests