Star Trek - Into Darkness

Dumar_sl said:

Refuse to pay money for this.

Click to expand...

Buy a ticket for The Great Gatsby (or whatever other movie you feel deserves your $8.50) that has a start time just before Into Darkness, find a seat, go to bathroom, come out and walk over to the Into Darkness theater. Problem solved, and your money isn't going to what you despise. But I'm sure you already considered this and refuse to because it would be dishonoring Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks.

That's actually a good idea.

or just let him not watch it?

none of you are going to suggest its a must watch. since its not a "must see" movie, why are you trying to convince him he must?

Pretty enjoyable movie with flaws. almost exactly like the last one.

i think the best way to differentiate science fiction and science fantasy is that in science fantasy the technology is the setting. it's the backdrop. it is simply WHERE the story takes place. in science fiction, the technology is integral to the plot. take game of thrones, for example... westeros is just where they are... it's not important to the story other than as being the place where it's happening. then look at i, robot (the book. not the stupid movie). the entire POINT of the story IS the technology. the emotional, political, religous, technological ramifications of the science.

if this was science fiction, it would focus MUCH more on the eugenics program... the humanitarian ramifications of genetically designing a group of people and then freezing them for 200 years because YOU played God and screwed up. They didn't do ANYTHING other than what WE designed them for. heck.. the eugenics program is identical to the story of i, robot.

STID was most definately NOT sci-fi. not that it's a bad thing... most of the other stories weren't really sci-fi either... you had some good sci-fi episodes throughout all the shows, but tng was REALLY the only show that focused more on the fiction and less on the fantasy.

Because his outrage and talking points (I use the term loosely) are something I enjoy reading while I pretend to work.

People talk about turning their brain off to watch this movie - well I have to do the same thing when I watch TNG, so I'm certainly not bothered by something that seems inconsistent with the rules of magic. Holy shit, everything that makes a starship work in ST is pure bullshit. Why didn't Harry Potter just use the fucking time turner to save his parents?

Lucas tried to explain the force and look at how THAT turned out. Trying to explain magic sucks. See Lost.

Kreugen_sl said:

People talk about turning their brain off to watch this movie - well I have to do the same thing when I watch TNG, so I'm certainly not bothered by something that seems inconsistent with the rules of magic. Holy shit, everything that makes a starship work in ST is pure bullshit. Why didn't Harry Potter just use the fucking time turner to save his parents?

Lucas tried to explain the force and look at how THAT turned out. Trying to explain magic sucks. See Lost.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The physics of Star Trek is actually talked and written about constantly, from the Alcubierre drive to matter transportation. Nobody truly knows what's impossible, possible, or even likely.

But again you're missing the fucking point. ST isn't about the technology, but the HUMAN RESPONSE to that technology. I've linked countless TNG episode clips; don't make me do it again because of your bullshit spew.

Deathwing_sl said:

j00t: I disagree. Some of DS9's best episodes are sci-fi. The last three seasons were basically "war sucks" and showing how many different ways war can fuck with you without killing you.

Click to expand...

right, there was PLENTY of sci-fi in the history of star trek. ds9 had some AMAZING episodes that were very clearly sci-fi... i just think that the only show where the main focus was sci-fi was tng. sure there was plenty of fantasy episodes, but most of them were sci-fi. and maybe my opinion is coming from ds9 being muddled in the sense that it focused A LOT on religion and spirituality... and we all want to say that science and religion don't really mix but science fiction and religion aren't really mutually exclusive. so, as i've written this my opinion has come full circle and am now of the opinion that ds9 had more sci-fi in it than tng. hmm...

Dumar_sl said:

But again you're missing the fucking point. ST isn't about the technology, but the HUMAN RESPONSE to that technology. I've linked countless TNG episode clips; don't make me do it again because of your bullshit spew.

Click to expand...

did i just inadvertantly write the exact same point as dumar...? /wrist

Dumar, none of my posts were talking to you, I've had you on ignore for years. I was talking about the gripes about getting the tech wrong like the transporter, firing at warp, sitting underwater, gravity going crazy while they crashed, whatever. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

But since you were quoted, this movie is no more or less "Star Trek" than any of the other movies. Sure, most of the TOS episodes were social commentary that ended with a fistfight, and most of TNG was social commentary that end in reversing the polarity of somethingorother. But the movies have all been about action and drama, and the only exceptions were terrible.

Even ST4 didn't spend two hours discussing the evils of hunting a species to extinction. It was justunderstood. Much like here you had a superior human that, hey, up and decides that being superior means he shouldn't be subservient to anyone. They don't dwell on it, it's just there. Because they already covered that shit in Space Seed, 30 years ago. Why rehash it? Get to the action already. There was more social commentary and character arc in this movie than fucking Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock combined, so I don't get your gripe at all. You only hate it because it says JJ Abrams on the fucking poster.

The only damn difference is everything is sped up and stuff looks different.

j00t_sl said:

did i just inadvertantly write the exact same point as dumar...? /wrist

Click to expand...

Gene would be proud.

Kreugen_sl said:

Dumar, none of my posts were talking to you, I've had you on ignore for years.

Click to expand...

No problem at all, but if you're gonna spew bullshit, I'm gonna call you out.

It's only bullshit to a butthurt raging fanboy that puts a TV show on a pedestal of perfection and cares way too much about any deviation, even though the show itself is quite diverse and does not fall into the laughably stringent definition you are placing on it. Even cerebral and snail-paced hippie fest TNG has its pure action episodes from time to time.

PS: It's better than at least 80% of the movies generated by the show. And even the haters seem to place it above most. Did you rage this much when you watched the piece of shit that was Star Trek: Generations? Holy fuck you HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE. For fucks sake I don't shit up a Twilight thread with how much I hate Twilight because I've never fucking seen it.

At least I'm reminded that you earned that ignore.

Kreugen_sl said:

There was more social commentary andcharacter arcin this movie than fucking Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock combined, so I don't get your gripe at all. You only hate it because it says JJ Abrams on the fucking poster.

Click to expand...

lol? I know you're just trying to make a point against Dumar. But Wrath of Khan was actually a good film, with good writing, clearly defined arcs, internal logical/consistency. Into the Darkness is an action film, with bad writing, messy character logic, and poor consistency--because it's all built to get to the next amazing action scene. (Which works fine, as I said in my post, I thought it was fine but I like it for what it is, an action movie.)

You comparing them and saying Into the Darkness is superior is as bad, or worse, than Dumar's hatred. You just jumped the argument shark, bro.

Where the fuck did I say Into the Darkness was better than Wrath of Khan? Am I fucking crazy or can people just not read?

And you know, not much really happens in Wrath of Khan. It was a VERY simple story, done really well. That's where Into Darkness suffers by having two big villains and an unrelated opening act.

Kreugen_sl said:

Where the fuck did I say Into the Darkness was better than Wrath of Khan? Am I fucking crazy or can people just not read?

And you know, not much really happens in Wrath of Khan. It was a VERY simple story, done really well. That's where Into Darkness suffers by having two big villains.

Click to expand...

You said it had better character arcs. Kirk's tragic arc is actually really, really great. We start with a character that does not face loss, and refuses to believe in it. Through some small vulnerabilities the character is shown to maybe be losing his edge (From age, overconfidence ect, lots of reasons). But he continues to grow and overcome--constantly "cheating" any loss that happened from these vulnerabilities through his wits (Almost every advantage he gets is through deception, that's not just a coincidence. It was done specifically to aid the theme.), just like in his youth--you kind of get the sense that maybe Kirk IS different, it's almost like a type of immortality.

Then at the end, just when he's about to sail into the sunset, having cheated loss one more time and asserting he is above it, we're shown thanno onecan really avoid it. The original problem which the arc was built off of, a desire to avoid or not acknowledge thehumanreality of facing loss, culminates in the last scene, as Kirk literally has to face it and watch his best friend die.

So we get this reclamation of youthful prowess throughout the film, combined with the acknowledgement that loss in unavoidable, it's a part of life. It's pretty brilliant story telling. And that's partially because, as you said, it's a very simple story--but it still manages to pull out a ton of depth because it relies on these themes to illustrate how people grow and change (Which is a hallmark of all really good stories--they have a lot of levels they can be enjoyed at, a good story can be simple or complex, a great story is both.).

So Wrath of Khan has an exceptional character arc. Into the Darkness? No.

And not even going to go into social/ethical commentary bit--the questions posed with the genesis device were also great (And they tie into the "needs of the few" theme in relation to the bad effects of science). I saw no deep questions posed by frozen supermen...If the militarization angle was downplayed to get us back as fast as possible to the action.

Again though, it's an action movie, I didn't go for that...meh and I'm not trying to knock the movie too much, I DID enjoy it. I just happen to think Wrath of Khan is probably the best "arc" in the whole franchise and a good example of how you can actually make a great "action" film.

Right, Kirk had a great arc in Khan and here a much less experienced and twice as cocky Kirk goes through nearly the same sequence in a less subtle, beat-you-over-the-head obvious way because he didn't even have the option of lying or cheating, he was just flat out fucked and had to be rescued. Seeing Kirk that helpless was a bit of a turnoff. But in ST2 up until Spock offed himself for the needs of the many, the rest of the crew just stood around like cardboard cutouts. None of this makes it a bad movie, and I'm not saying that Into Darkness's attempts to get more people involved was universally great (Uhura, ffs) but it did try more than most of the Trek movies. Scotty quitting was the biggest moment he's ever had on screen.

When people keep saying "just an action movie" I think of like, The Transporter or Fast and Furious. Those are just action movies. This sure as fuck had a lot more going for it than that. It's more on par with something like Marvel stuff, where you at least get attempts at characters and drama along with the action. (and way better paced than, say, IM3 for fucking sure)

And come on, the genesis device was just another "Idealistic scientists make something that WHOOPS also could kill billions." Not exactly original. Into Darkness just skips the idealistic part and makes it a weapon from the start (the Vengeance)

That still isn't saying I think it's a superior movie to Wrath of Khan. You aren't going to dethrone something you've loved for 20 years. I mean, how the fuck do you top this:



(the "I CAN'T!" cracks me up every time)

Kreugen_sl said:

And come on, the genesis device was just another "Idealistic scientists make something that WHOOPS also could kill billions." Not exactly original. Into Darkness just skips the idealistic part and makes it a weapon from the start (the Vengeance)

Click to expand...

It wasn't just about the Macguffen falling into the "wrong hands"--it was also a commentary that even science in the wrong hands can still produce something that's a net benefit. That's why the constant commentary about the "needs of the few"--it's a commentary on perspective. If the only perspective on nuclear advancement was ground zero--I'm sure everyone would say it was universally horrible and should be abandoned. But take a step back and take the longer view, and it's been a "miracle" like advancement. That's the commentary, progress is almost always good, even if it's momentarily awful (Granted that theme got shlocked in 3, but the final view of the planet in 2 encapsulated and overall good.)

This movie could have made kind of the same commentary, especially if they had played up all the benefits that pursuing genetics would have provided. Instead we get a ham fisted call back with the resurrection of Kirk through science, that was far, far more shallow but essentially the same--just instead of Genesis, it was Khan that represented both the evil of progress and the good. However, like I said, it was shallow because it was only brought up at the end, rather than being discussed through the movie and being a theme of the film. (Even if it had been a theme, it still would have been a little more shallow, because in Khan all the other themes in the movie kind of worked with it, like Kirk's age/facing death ect.)

As for being an "action" movie...It's a decent action movie, sure. Which means it has better acting, dialogue, pacing and some deeper characters than Fast and Furious. But it doesn't leave that genre of all those things being sacrificed for the next action scene. The only difference between Fast/Furious and Into the Darkness is JJ is a much better character director than whoever does those movies...But the writing wasn't really better (in some ways it worse, because it tried to be more complex and it came off as stupid.)