Star Trek - Into Darkness
- Thread starter Halan
- Start date
. This movie was pure awesomeJust once I'd like to see some augments not interested in taking over the world. It'd be awesome if they all decided to embrace careers in interstellar pr0n.
Tarrant
<Prior Amod>
- 15,567
- 9,019
They also said the ship was designed to run with a minimal crew so it's not a stretch to think 1 person coul ddo it. We saw Data do it on the Enterprise and the doctor do it on Voyager and neither of those were designed to run without a full crew.
Jait
Molten Core Raider
- 5,035
- 5,317
You make a good point. But unfortunately they made perfect rolls in INT, but hit the low end on WIS.
Braen
<Medals Crew>
- 1,027
- 532
See Star trek III
Scotty: All systems automated and ready. A chimpanzee and two trainees could run her.
Kirk: Thank you, Mr. Scott. I'll try not to take that personally.
Fury
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 499
- 25
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,500
- 22,414
There's actually a really good reason why Starfleet ships are designed the way they are and crewed the way they are and why officers go on away missions.
The reason is that Starfleet is NOT primarily a military operation. Yeah, all the interesting stuff we see often happens during missions that involve conflict, but ~90% of the time, ~90% of the ships are engaged in things that have very little to do with military operations. It completely makes sense that the entire organization would have such terrible respect for military doctrines.
The reason is that Starfleet is NOT primarily a military operation. Yeah, all the interesting stuff we see often happens during missions that involve conflict, but ~90% of the time, ~90% of the ships are engaged in things that have very little to do with military operations. It completely makes sense that the entire organization would have such terrible respect for military doctrines.
It is extremely ridiculous that Khan could transport to Qo'noS (spell it right damnit Abrams) from Earth. Ships can and have fought at warp, but you generally have to either merge warp bubbles, since phasers are still limited to sub light speeds, or just fire torpedoes, which can have their own warp drives.
Decado
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 94
- 44
What a fucking god awful FAQ. The writer needs to be beaten to death with giant Canonical Star Trek encyclopaedia for being a fucking bellend
Prime Spock gave Scotty his equations for transwarp beaming in the 2009 Star Trek movie, which is why Kirk and Scotty were able to beam onto the Enterprise when they were marooned on Delta Vega.
Venijk
Bronze Knight of the Realm
- 132
- 7
Dude sounds like a pre-teen crying about how "horrible" their life is.
My only major gripe was the deus ex machina blood thing. Overall it had reasonable depth, fun action scenes, a decent story, and I think it's worth seeing.
There was one other thing though, and I'm not sure if it was just me or if it was actually well crafted... but I really liked the very end of the movie. Maybe it's just a combination of reasonably low expectations and nostalgia, but seeing the crew of the Enterprise finally embark on their journey gave me a sense of awe which I haven't experienced in a long time.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
The thing is, you really have to go in with the mindset that this is Science Fantasy, not fiction. And lets be fair, this shit hasn't been Science Fiction since the second season of DS9. However, even though the whole franchise became "Sci-Fantasy" with techno babble, it usually had (Not always, *cough* Next Gen movies) an internal consistency. And as long as stories keep that, I don't care. For example, ship in the water? The science behind it does not matter to me. Easily explained away with force fields, various force dampeners ect. If this was actual Sci-Fi it would bother me, but it's not, and it does not even pretend to be--so it's fine.
What bothered me though was internal inconsistencies. If your writing needs to make up something on the spot to extricate you from a situation--then your writing is bad. It's especially bad if it has obvious and huge implications in the story, and is never mentioned again because it was only needed in that specific part of the plot (Force run, Phantom Menace).
In this vein, Super-Blood, Cross-Federation Beaming, Water-Ship (Even though we saw in the first movie every star ship has a dozen shuttles) and other thing were really bad and represented bad writing. It showed character decisions and events in the movie were dictated by the needs of the plot, rather than the plot unfolding because the characters were making internal consistent decisions (Again their decisions can be dumb,dumb is fine--as long as it's consistent within the story so far.)
Also, Kirk's death was pretty groan worthy (It wasn't "bad" just pointing it out to show the difference between good writing and mediocre). In Khan, Spock's death overall had a VERY integral part to the story--the entire arc was set up to culminate in it. Kirk had to face loss, and he did, with the death of his best friend. Spock was also the only one who could fix the ship, as humans were to susceptible to the radiation poisoning. In this one, Kirk's death was just....there, because it was....It was like that moment in the modern planet of the apes where Lincoln's head was now a gorilla. It was just tacked on to create a mirror to the other movie, the movie itself wasn't written with the internal consistency to give it some meaning. Which is fine, sometimes deaths in stories don't have an overall meaning, but really good writing generally has a theme that shows it.
All that being said, it was a good action movie, which is what they were going for. Much like Prometheus, and Avatar ect--it was aneffectivemovie to entertain (Though I'd say it was better than those 2, because at least it's action and pacing were great). It was not a really "great" movie though (And yes, action movies can be great). The characters, the script, the dialogue, the themes of the film were all slaves to action and pacing. Which is pretty much Abrams forte--keep the action going, not a minute can be about something cerebral. At least he's not nearly as offensive with it as Michael Bay though.
Overall, I enjoyed it for what it was. If I went in expecting decent Sci-Fi, or a great story, I would have supremely rustled jimmies. But I was prepared for Space-Action-Fantasy, and that's what I got, so it was decent. (And no, I don't like what Star Trek has become--but I'm not going to knock the movie for the overall philosophical direction changing. As a self contained movie, this was a "good" action flick with some bad writing.)
What bothered me though was internal inconsistencies. If your writing needs to make up something on the spot to extricate you from a situation--then your writing is bad. It's especially bad if it has obvious and huge implications in the story, and is never mentioned again because it was only needed in that specific part of the plot (Force run, Phantom Menace).
In this vein, Super-Blood, Cross-Federation Beaming, Water-Ship (Even though we saw in the first movie every star ship has a dozen shuttles) and other thing were really bad and represented bad writing. It showed character decisions and events in the movie were dictated by the needs of the plot, rather than the plot unfolding because the characters were making internal consistent decisions (Again their decisions can be dumb,dumb is fine--as long as it's consistent within the story so far.)
Also, Kirk's death was pretty groan worthy (It wasn't "bad" just pointing it out to show the difference between good writing and mediocre). In Khan, Spock's death overall had a VERY integral part to the story--the entire arc was set up to culminate in it. Kirk had to face loss, and he did, with the death of his best friend. Spock was also the only one who could fix the ship, as humans were to susceptible to the radiation poisoning. In this one, Kirk's death was just....there, because it was....It was like that moment in the modern planet of the apes where Lincoln's head was now a gorilla. It was just tacked on to create a mirror to the other movie, the movie itself wasn't written with the internal consistency to give it some meaning. Which is fine, sometimes deaths in stories don't have an overall meaning, but really good writing generally has a theme that shows it.
All that being said, it was a good action movie, which is what they were going for. Much like Prometheus, and Avatar ect--it was aneffectivemovie to entertain (Though I'd say it was better than those 2, because at least it's action and pacing were great). It was not a really "great" movie though (And yes, action movies can be great). The characters, the script, the dialogue, the themes of the film were all slaves to action and pacing. Which is pretty much Abrams forte--keep the action going, not a minute can be about something cerebral. At least he's not nearly as offensive with it as Michael Bay though.
Overall, I enjoyed it for what it was. If I went in expecting decent Sci-Fi, or a great story, I would have supremely rustled jimmies. But I was prepared for Space-Action-Fantasy, and that's what I got, so it was decent. (And no, I don't like what Star Trek has become--but I'm not going to knock the movie for the overall philosophical direction changing. As a self contained movie, this was a "good" action flick with some bad writing.)
Everyone keeps throwing around science fantasy. What exactly is science fantasy and what exactly is science fiction? If you go by the hero on a quest to save the girl and such then you could consider Eurotrip a modern fantasy.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
I think the Serling Quote on Wikipedia sums it up pretty well....Rod Serling claimed that the former was "the improbable made possible" (Sci-Fiction) while the latter was "the impossible made probable" (Fantasy)
I usually just use it as a term for how tight the technical aspect of the show/movie is. If the movie is completely disinterested toward the technical side, then it's a fantasy where "Sciency" stuff has replaced magic. While Sci Fi is very into the technical side, and the actual "how things work" can have huge (And almost always does) impacts on the story. It's just another way of saying this is very, very loose Science fiction, where as say, 2001 was very tight.
Science fiction is generally rooted in science; either modern science, near-future science, or plausible future science. The other VERY important part of science fiction is that it's part of speculative fiction, and speculative fiction asks questions.
A good example of "the question" part would be, "What would happen if people became fast healing and virtually immortal?" Now, somewhere in that story, the "HOW?" comes into play, and this is what separates Science Fiction and Space Opera (aka Space Fantasy).
Science Fiction would have no problem doing the research. SCI-FI looks up where we are with medical nanotech and biotech, because that shit is cool and science fiction is the domain of nerds. SCI-FI talks to experts in those fields and ask them to postulate where that technology will be in 10, 20, 50 years. Then they take an interesting nugget of that information and write a story.
Fantasy doesn't do research, it invents stuff. Fantasy doesn't look at modern technology, they use plot devices that usually aren't rooted in any science. They don't talk to experts becauseeverythingan expert will tell them will ruin the storythat they already came up with.
Star Trek: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT = Mostly Science Fiction. Mostly.
Star Trek [2009] = Space Fantasy
Star Trek: Into Darkness = Space Fantasy
And that's perfectly OK for probably 90% of the people who see those movies, and 100% of the studios. I really liked the 2009 flick when I first saw it, but on repeat viewings I found more and more that didn't sit well with me, until I got to the point where I am now. Star Trek and Star Wars are, for all intents and purposes, the same now. And that's perfectly OK for probably 90% of the people who like those movies. But for the 10% that loved Trek because it wasn't Star Wars, these new movies are nerd-rage inducing.
That FAQ that was linked to earlier? Yeah, that guy is a Trekkie. He's part of that 10%. It's fun to mock him, but I didn't notice many of you refuting much of what he wrote! Reason? Because most of what he wrote cannot be refuted. Most of what he wrote was objectively true.
I really liked STID on my first viewing. Next time I see it my subconscious is going to pick that fucker apart and I'm probably going to end up thinking it's just "OK", just like what happened with the last film.
Caliane
Avatar of War Slayer
- 14,656
- 10,203
you are giving TOS WAAAAAY too much credit for not being space fantasy. ffs, how many magical gods were there? I seem to remember them going to wonderland at one point. as well.
TNG and beyond got alot more stable, but the TOS didnt give a shit about "prime directive" or actually paying attention to science.
Movie was enjoyable.
I don't feel as if any of the criticisms are wrong though. Kindof the same as the first one. Action packed. great set pieces. great cinematography. lots of lens flares. some really questionable science.
Callbacks to older canon, which will pissoff fans, mean nothing to those that aren't familiar at all, and only be enjoyed by the few that are casual enough to be vaguely aware. which means their inclusion was stupid.
TNG and beyond got alot more stable, but the TOS didnt give a shit about "prime directive" or actually paying attention to science.
Movie was enjoyable.
I don't feel as if any of the criticisms are wrong though. Kindof the same as the first one. Action packed. great set pieces. great cinematography. lots of lens flares. some really questionable science.
Callbacks to older canon, which will pissoff fans, mean nothing to those that aren't familiar at all, and only be enjoyed by the few that are casual enough to be vaguely aware. which means their inclusion was stupid.
much of the faq brings up some of the flaws, although it goes too far a number of times. Examples that stuck in my craw.. cold fusion bomb.., freezing things. Space ship underwater, even lampshaded IN the movie by Scottie. none of that makes sense. the hull wouldn't take the pressure. the buoyancy, where is all that water going? the salt? transport can't take the heat of the volcano, but Spocks suit CAN? Planet destroying volcano.. what? planet destroying volcano is stopped by freezing it. thats not how vulcanization works. thats like putting a bandaid on a handgrenade. Teleport from Earth directly to Kronos. the fuck?! If thats possible, why do they even have starships at all? fusion reaction presumably with ring in water, to set up.. flying a harrier jet up to the meeting room in a completely ineffective ambush. seriously, he killed 2 people out of 30 in that room. what the fuck? that scene was written horribly. it focused ENTIRELY on Kirk for some reason. Kirk being the supreme being in this universe. Kirk should have not been in the room at all. and everyone in it, dead. Firing his rifle at the harrier didnt work. but, THROWING the gun at it, did.... too stupid for words there.
Most of this now, I found reasonable. but later parts, Kirk hails Scottie on Earth from Kronos directly. what? Must have 4g.
working with Khan makes sense in the context of the movie, contrary to the FAQ. one, Kirk doesnt know what we know. two, he clearly doesn't trust Khan at all, and outright tells Scottie to shoot him as soon as they get to the bridge. three, it was their only chance. Kirk taking risks like that is entirely in character. Enterprise taking an inexplicable number of direct hits and only taking moderate damage. Seriously, shields down and pounded on for like 40+ hits. and stuff still magically working. that was some dumb shit. Which does lead into one of my general complaints on movies. hundreds of crew members die, but as long as the main character lives, happy ending. thats kindof balls. Scottie should be more then a little pissed, and sad about all those engineers that were ripped out of the hull at warp speed. Hell, maybe a scene where they went back and got the bodies for a proper burial.
how did the Enterprise get pulled into Earths gravity? weren't they knocked out of warp like 200k miles away?
General inclusion of Khan, and the reactor scene is touched upon above. no real point to it. just pisses off fans, doesnt mean anything to not fans. so why? its like the name drop of Iron patriot in IM3 really.
Hell, they could have even had it as sort of a twist. what if this guy was not Khan but one of the OTHER supermen? like, instead of waking up Khan, the admiral picked a different tube to open, and thus same movie, but guy is named something else. could have had a reveal scene at the torpedo. where we look inside the torpedo, and the guy frozen in it is Khan.
I was going to complain about the size of the starships in the final scenes. but I guess they are much bigger in the reboot? old ones were not much bigger then a skyscraper at all. barely
Most of this now, I found reasonable. but later parts, Kirk hails Scottie on Earth from Kronos directly. what? Must have 4g.
working with Khan makes sense in the context of the movie, contrary to the FAQ. one, Kirk doesnt know what we know. two, he clearly doesn't trust Khan at all, and outright tells Scottie to shoot him as soon as they get to the bridge. three, it was their only chance. Kirk taking risks like that is entirely in character. Enterprise taking an inexplicable number of direct hits and only taking moderate damage. Seriously, shields down and pounded on for like 40+ hits. and stuff still magically working. that was some dumb shit. Which does lead into one of my general complaints on movies. hundreds of crew members die, but as long as the main character lives, happy ending. thats kindof balls. Scottie should be more then a little pissed, and sad about all those engineers that were ripped out of the hull at warp speed. Hell, maybe a scene where they went back and got the bodies for a proper burial.
how did the Enterprise get pulled into Earths gravity? weren't they knocked out of warp like 200k miles away?
General inclusion of Khan, and the reactor scene is touched upon above. no real point to it. just pisses off fans, doesnt mean anything to not fans. so why? its like the name drop of Iron patriot in IM3 really.
Hell, they could have even had it as sort of a twist. what if this guy was not Khan but one of the OTHER supermen? like, instead of waking up Khan, the admiral picked a different tube to open, and thus same movie, but guy is named something else. could have had a reveal scene at the torpedo. where we look inside the torpedo, and the guy frozen in it is Khan.
I was going to complain about the size of the starships in the final scenes. but I guess they are much bigger in the reboot? old ones were not much bigger then a skyscraper at all. barely
The problem you have is these movies are more a wave to TOS and not to TNGs 'thinking man's Sci Fi. The TNG/DS9 crew are going to be butthurt, and understandably so given that this movie first and foremost is a popcorn action flick. That said, even with having watched just about every Star Trek show ever created, I can honestly say I enjoyed the fuck out of this movie even with it's few inconsistencies. Hell, with the amount of subtle shout outs to earlier episodes, how could a trekkie not, unless you take your ST just way too seriously as the Dumar link did.
Dumar, go watch the movie. You'll probably enjoy it.
Dumar, go watch the movie. You'll probably enjoy it.
It's not a 'good action movie' though. A good action movie should also be internally consistent. The first Die Hard was a good action movie. T2 was a good action movie. If you're talking about Star Trek, the stuff mentioned in that FAQ makes no sense internally even for an action movie. I could write that script. A retarded monkey could write that script.
Already told my friends no. Refuse to pay money for this.
Kreugen
Vyemm Raider
- 6,599
- 793
All of Star Trek is science fantasy by every definition. Just because TNG had less double-fist punches doesn't make it any more grounded in reality. Transporter? Q? Holodecks? Inertia cancelling magic? Reverse tachyon pluses? ESP? Pure bullshit.
Most of the technology on the show is only explained later in trek encyclopedias or whatever, which pretty much amount to fan fiction. They don't even casually mention things like, oh, you can't make matter out of nothing so replicators are actually rearranging raw material that they keep in a big vat on the ship somewhere. (probably raw sewage. Enjoy your shit sundae, Troi)
FFS, the holodeck is far more implausible than a ship that can park underwater or shoot guns while moving really fast.
But point being, its hard to gripe about made up bullshit just because it came from JJ Abrams instead of Roddenberry or Ron Moore or the other dozens of writers. Most of the 'tech' is only explained later in encyclopedias or whatever that are basically just fan fiction. They rarely discuss how shit works on the show.
Most of the technology on the show is only explained later in trek encyclopedias or whatever, which pretty much amount to fan fiction. They don't even casually mention things like, oh, you can't make matter out of nothing so replicators are actually rearranging raw material that they keep in a big vat on the ship somewhere. (probably raw sewage. Enjoy your shit sundae, Troi)
FFS, the holodeck is far more implausible than a ship that can park underwater or shoot guns while moving really fast.
But point being, its hard to gripe about made up bullshit just because it came from JJ Abrams instead of Roddenberry or Ron Moore or the other dozens of writers. Most of the 'tech' is only explained later in encyclopedias or whatever that are basically just fan fiction. They rarely discuss how shit works on the show.
I think you missed the point. It's about asking the question as a poster said above. Scifi asks the questions and answers them through some context in a story. Not only do these new movies not have answers, they don't even ask questions. They're Star Wars.