star trek:into darkness (WARNING: SPOILERS as of 4/23/13)

It's not good enough. It has to not only look cool, it has to fit. A 1969 Mustang Mach I looks pretty fuckin' cool, but if I put it in a movie set in the '30s and people don't bitch about it, there's some hardcore shit in the water supply.

But let's take the, "it's just a movie!" road.

If George Miller busted out a Mad Max prequel with brand-spanking-new 2013 vehicles in it that have not a scratch on them, people would bitch. Why? Because they wouldn't fit in that universe as we know it.

This is why the NX-01 refit would have quashed that gripe for me. Not because they added a secondary hull to make it look like an intermediate step toward the Connie ship configuration, although that's nice. No, it's because they started covering up the glowy shit on the nacelles, which detail was a common denominator of TOS ships all the way through TUC.

Minor detail? Sure. But minor details matter. Even if the majority of the audience doesn't notice, a minority will. And the content creators very definitely should. You set your standard to the top of the audience, not the bottom, on the theory that in succeeding generations the bottom will climb rather than the top sinking. The people who demand the least today will demand more tomorrow, rather than those who demand the most today demanding less tomorrow. So you create for today and tomorrow. That's why the details matter. That's why "looks cool" isn't good enough.

 

Berman wanted to use a galaxy class ship in enterprise.

 

Finally watched it in theatres yesterday. What are the current nitpicks about it again? I'm not reading through the entire thread.


One thing I noticed is that the warp drives used by Starfleet seem to be totally different from the ones used in the original timeline. It occurred to me that in TNG it was established that Romulan warp drives are built around artificial singularities instead of a matter/antimatter system. Since it's already been established that Federation technology was heavily influenced by scans of the Narada, wouldn't it make sense that they adopted Romulan warp drive technology as well?

To me, that would explain why engineering looks "wrong" on the new Enterprise, or why the proportions seem to be off, or why the nacelles are so different. It's because the new Enterprise is an entirely different type of ship that's been adapted to fit the traditional Federation aesthetic.

 

Kirk is still an unlikable brat; people do things that make no in-character or in-universe sense; the movie doesn't sell the KHAAAAAN moment nearly well enough; and the mighty Uhura, who used to champion equality for both women and blacks simply by being on the bridge, is now reduced to a girlfriend giving her guy the silent treatment and not being very good at it.

Just off the top of my head.

 

Who has an arc of developing maturity and judgment in this film.

What, specifically?

I thought it worked great, and tying it to the Vengeance swooping past Enterprise made it even more effective.

Are we talking about the Uhura who pushes Kirk into letting her talk to the Klingons and who rescues Spock in the finale?

 

I know Dayton and Captain X will bitch and moan about box office figure, but I would once again note that STiD has surpassed TWOK and, as of today, is less than $9-million away from becoming the third-highest grossing Star Trek film of all time (adjusted for inflation)... right behind TMP and the 2009 masterpiece. I'm guessing it's going to make it to third place before it leaves the theatres.

 

That's actually a good point.

Except for the part in 2009 where they eject anti-matter from the core in order to escape the blackhole.

 

Well, of course there's that...

But seriously. Federation warp drives never used to leave a trail of pixie dust. And they showed stabilizer flap thingys on the nacelles that helped steer the ship, which I've never seen in Trek before.

 

Star Trek needs a full on hardcore sex scene, that or making Star Trek more of a less than an idealic world

 

The former would make it a MORE idyllic world, wouldn't it?

 

Nah, I'll just remind you that the LotR movies all made major bank and were loved by critics, too.

 

The film shows Kirk going from a hothead who is eager to assassinate "John Harrison" with a drone strike and ignoring Scotty's valid concerns about the potential risk of the strange devices to be used to do so to realizing the logic of Spock's argument that doing so is not the Starfleet way.

To buy into the "Khaaan!" you would have to buy that Spock is more emotional about Kirk's death than he had been about his mother's or various other situations. It's something where the homage to "Wrath" goes perhaps too far.

I love Nichelle Nichols, but let's face it: if you add all the contributions of Uhura 1.0 to the successes of the missions through all three seasons of the show, the animated series and the movies (beyond the "hailing frequencies open" and being a sexy black chick bit), you probably don't get more than Uhura 2.0's done in the first two movies.

 

I thought they were overblown fantasy wankfests that could have been much better movies with tighter editing and better direction. But that's only my opinion and I can see why many people (including critics) liked the films.

However, unlike other posters on this board, I don't constantly bitch and moan about the movies and state with absolute certainty that they are objectively bad films.

 

No, you just constantly bitch and moan about other posters because they don't like the same movies you do.

 

Dance CaptainX, Dance!

 

To be fair, it's not like WAB has a banner to his fan fic reimagining website of The Hobbit in his signature.

 

That's interesting, because from my perspective the new engineering seemed a lot more like how you would expect a matter/anti-matter reactor to look.

 

Really, the worst offense to McTrek is how painfully obvious all of the plot contrivances are. And let's be clear, plot contrivances are just going to happen -- but you know they're crude and sloppy when they can be pointed out during the first viewing. That's not just bad writing, that's lazy writing from writers who simply do not give a shit, which thing is just plain offensive.

I mean, I know there's gonna be some fudging going on, but the least they can do is give a half a damn and smooth it over a little.

 

Obvious plot contrivances in Star Trek??

Say it ain't so!!!!

Why don't you detail them for us and tell us how a master script writer such as yourself would fix 'em?

 

Dayton: More Space Battles!!!

 

He's only co written something that no one has ever heard of.

 

People, please. Media Central.

 

And? He makes a critique of the writing, and also makes the claim that he is a credentialed writer. It isn't flaming or trolling or anything else naughty if we dispute the credential during a critical discussion of the film. VisionCastle doesn't need the protection of a rule that shouldn't apply.

 

If you disagree with a poster's comments, argue about the comments not the poster. Credentials are irrelevant as everyone is free to post here without suffering personal attacks.

 

Right, but if somebody claims a credential, it's relevant to question the value of that credential. It's not an attack to say John Castle only ever co-authored the script for an unheard of indie production. That's a fact. A statement of fact violates no known rules, so no need to tread lightly.

 

Not here.

gul, you're playing with fire.

This is my last word on the issue: in Media Central, you may discuss and argue about the topic, but if you make personal attacks on posters--whether you regard your statements as fact or not--I will give you a warning.

If you're unsatisfied with my position, take it up with Lanz.

 

Don't bother, Paladin's got it right. Now chill.

 

You guys just gave him license to critique a topic in a fashion to which nobody can respond. Good job, let's call this the Castle doctrine.

And by the way, reiterating a statement about a poster that he himself has made is only an attack under a very twisted logic.

 

Bullshit. Visionrazor has, as a matter of complete fact, often asserted his talents and experience in terms of writing. Why is it wrong to ask him for his take on matters? It's like saying it's trolling to ask Dayton his view of education or one of the service personnel their take on, say, don't ask, don't tell. Since when was any of that trolling?