When there is no interest, people will stop posting. Look on the second page of media central for the threads lacking interest. I for one, am still interested in discussing the latest Trek movie. I hope that when the haters and trolls show up, the mods will actually do their job. But if not, maybe they can at least leave the thread openn. One thing that bugs me about STiD is the unnecessary mayhem in San Francisco. What was the point of that? It's not like Spock, in his rage, decided to beat Khan senseless instead of saving the city. It created no dramatic tension, so why do it? Discuss
In my opinion, this was probably along the lines of J.J. Abrams wanting to do "something that has never been done before" (starship crashing into a city), given that IIRC the only thing that comes remotely close to that is in the third Star Wars prequel where you basically have a crash landing of a starship.
Be advised: this thread will be moderated VERY strictly. Any trolling or flaming, no matter how indirect, will be warned. There will be no friendly warnings and no advisories to keep it civil.
If it helps keep the peace I will only respond to specific observations by others who have already seen the movie as I did above.
So you think he just wanted to go for some explosive destruction for the sake of showing his effects chops? I find that distasteful, much as I do the idea that Star Trek needs visually spectacular space battles. It's the story, that should be all it ever is. If the story demands that we destroy a city, then do it. Otherwise, hands off, Mr. Abrams!
Paladin, what are your thoughts on the destruction of San Francisco? Is there a plot element I missed?
I've seen the movie and have an observation. I liked the scene in the bar. What did you think of that scene when you saw it, Dayton3?
I think it was the necessary chase scene, is all. What I do find unique about it is that for once you have an epic fist fight in a movie between two skinny guys.
While I agree the scene didn't add dramatic tension, it certainly didn't take anything away either. I think the scene would've been better if Admiral Marcus were alive to witness the destruction, and thus see for himself the extent of the horror he had unleashed.
Maybe combine that with Spock having to choose between killing Khan and saving Marcus. Then we'd have that required tension and the scene would no longer be gratuitous.
There is precedent. In Star Trek: Generations Berman and company basically spent a million dollars and allowed Herman Zimmerman to build the "Stellar Cartography" set for little better reason than it was "something Zimmerman had always wanted to do". A million dollar set to deliver about one minute of expository dialogue that could've just as effectively been delivered almost anywhere.
But that Stellar Cartography scene sticks in your mind, doesn't it? It was fairly spectacular and was a glimpse at Starfleet's technology.
And that was one of the worst Star Trek movies, so not a good idea for emulation. I mean, Abrams was able to get Leonard Nimoy, something Berman failed to do. When you have a gratuitous cameo, you don't need a gratuitous special effect or set. IMO!
Actually, Stellar Cartography was one of the best parts of "Generations." It also provided a visual explanation of how a star's destruction changed the path of the Nexus.
This is how I would've done it: Marcus is alive, but incapacitated; Khan breaks one of his legs instead of Carol's. Khan returns Kirk, Scotty, and Carol to the Enterprise, but keeps Marcus around. He wants to torture the admiral after he gets his people back. Later, as the Vengeance crashes into the city, Marcus is right there alongside Khan, a witness to the mayhem. Earlier, Marcus had commented about how he was responsible for every death Khan caused. One can only imagine the sheer horror that must be running through the admiral's mind, knowing that he is ultimately responsible for thousands of deaths. Many of his friends at Starfleet HQ are dead. Starfleet itself is most likely in chaos, leaving the Federation vulnerable to an attack. The admiral wanted to protect the Federation and his way of life, but instead jeopardized it completely with his selfish, shortsighted actions. Peter Weller has the acting chops to make it all look good, too. Then, Khan can do his little head crushing thing to the admiral, and the rest of the scene can play out as before. I wouldn't change the rest because I found the Vulcan vs Superhuman sequence enjoyable.
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/02/10_almost-cast_star-trek_actors_that_wouldve_impro.php Improved overall? Not sure I agree with that assessment for each character, but interesting information nonetheless.
It sticks in my mind because: 1) I considered it a collosal waste of resources that could've been better used elsewhere. 2) Sci-Fi Universe IIRC had a scathing review of Generations and mentioned Stellar Cartography as a waste of time and resources. 3) It was emblematic of Rick Berman's wanting to make movies NOT that Star Trek fans would like but movies that Star Trek PRODUCTION STAFF wanted to enjoy making.
So a new Star Trek thread has been open for two hours and there's already four Dayton posts in it. And he's not trolling? Yeah, right.
Cause they thought it would look cool? I mean, they did the saucer section crash landing in Generations, they did one ship ramming into another ship in Nemesis, so of course they're going to copy not only Revenge of the Sith but also Speed 2 before that. I'll say it again - this was Jar Jar's audition for Star Wars. He had no interest or intention of making anything that was recognizable as the Star Trek we grew up with.
Yeah, the "two skinny guys running fast" scene killed the tension for me. I suppose it justifies Spock having to track down Khan himself instead of just leaving it to the authorities, since they'd all be busy dealing with the fallout from the crash.
I've always thought that Stellar Cartography should have been holographic rather than a wrap-around screen, though, personally.
