The Official Red Room Bitch About Star Trek Into Darkness Thread! (SPOILERS)

Because over the span of 12 movies, maybe three are able to deliver a decent mix of story and action to satisfy most fans. ST09 was one of them, STiD might be able to up that to 4/12/

The fact that JJverse stories are not only subjectively, but also technically better films in any way that matters makes T.R.'s point. Your problem here is you either can't or won't grasp that concept.

Go slash your wrists with Cap'nEcks...

Yes, we all know you're a whiny, useless bitch.

I see you've given up...

Whiny? why would I whine? I'm still plenty optimistic that I'll enjoy this flick despite the hinted at holes in the story. Hell, as I only have moderate expectations, I'll likely get an extra bang for my buck out of it.

Keep on carving KHANNNNNNNNN! into your wrists, buddy. Your rants will remain impotent.

Your sobbing is so soothing.

Yet another irrelevancy.

Suppose this movie turned out to advance the subtle discussion of the ethics and morality of covert government action, employing terrorism to expose and defeat corruption, determining your loyalty as a member of the service when you find those above you have made unethical choices....

All of which are heavily implied by the material we've already seen.

at what point does the fact that it ALSO includes whiz-bang action render moot the fact that it also makes a philosophical point (or at least rashes the questions)?

the problem with your thesis is not the numbers, rather it is the arrogant assumption that you and you alone are the arbiter of "good"

there's more likely some connection to the line we've already heard from the movie in which he says "I WILL have my VENGEANCE"


Cause, ya know, "Wrath" and"Vengeance" are not really the same thing.

I fully expect to enjoy and be entertained by most of this film.

I also fully expect to be let down and annoyed by certain details of this film.

Not everyone is a gusher or a hater. A great deal of us are in-between.

for general use, I submit to you the counter-shinji - if you want to fight fire with fire.

fixed

for posting a self-portrait?

Do you miss the point on purpose all of the time or only some of the time? Do I really have to connect the dots for you about how TWoK is about Khan getting his revenge, and how vengeance is just another way of saying that? Then again, I'm pretty sure you already knew that, so I'm pretty sure I didn't have to actually explain that.

Your resistance only makes my penis harder.

Something I've wondered - did Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman consult with Garamet on the Pike character? You know, since Maggie supposedly invented most of his backstory for Burning Dreams?

And if they did use something of that background to create the movie Pike, did Garamet ask for her name to be in the credits? I would assume she can't sue for infrigement of intellectual property, since I'm sure anything written in a Trek book becomes the property of Paramount.

Dunno. Probably not, since -- although she may have expanded the hell out of the character, she didn't originate the character.

If you have a question for me, ask it.

Did Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman consult with you on the Pike character?

Of course not. Anyone who understands the concept of tie-in media wouldn't even ask that question.

Of course I mustn't... everyone should stop and check out the train wreck.

This is wishful thinking at this point, but is there ANY chance John Harrison ISN'T Khan? If need be, couldn't Harrison have been some other augment?

Regarding ship names, Vengeance & Defiant aren't in the same boat (pun intended). And yes, I know there have been several ships IRL named Vengeance, but that's irrelevant to its forced tacky use in STiD. Before Sisko's Defiant there was the original Constitution Class Defiant in "The Tholian Web", for which it was named.

I'm not saying it's Khan, but it's Khan.

That's right Maggie, we're all too stupid to understand that the extended universe stuff - the magazines, the comics (at least the comics of old, supposedly the new IDW comics are considered canon), isn't considered "canon" and the movie makers aren't beholden to any of it.

OTOH, it seems plausible to me that the filmmakers might have decided that in order to get a "feel" for the character they could talk to the writer who was tasked with inventing the entire backstory.

So, either you have no follow up to Post #196, or John Castle gave you enough of an answer in Post #198, or you're just blithering as usual, but Maggie Simpson's a Fox property - nothing to do with Trek at all.

Unless tie-in media is declared "canon" from the beginning, it's not considered canon at all.

None of garamet's books are canon, and as such would not be considered any sort of source material that "counts".

Which is too bad, because some of them are very good.