Star Trek - Into Darkness | May 15, 2013

[FoolKiller]

See, I like the quasi-scientific "consistency" of Trek and... after a third viewing I really hated newtrek.

I did call it one major issue for me. Seeing starships built on a planet surface and witnessing old Spock appear in a past timeline that wasn't his own were my first two biggies. Then listening to red matter explained felt like the explanation of stasis in Red Dwarf.

 

[Hun200kmh]

About "old Spock" being in the same galaxy, same system, same planet, same latitude, same longitude, and even SAME CAVE as "new Kirk" when he gets booted from the Enterprise by "New Spock" ... made me chuckle, but I just grabbed more peanuts and drank more beer (not a popcorn-cola guy) and enjoyed the show.

That was my only problem with "newtrek" as you guys are calling it. Red matter creating black holes is quite understandable but two universe travelling guys ending up in the same cave ... now that's pushing it ! As I said though ... 'twas time for peanuts & beer.

 

[Azuremen]

Are you aware that "Star Trek" is a television and film series? There were novels, but most of them were not canonical.

The point was that Star Trek isn't the hardest of Sci-Fi, by any means. I've actually been pondering if Firefly would qualify as harder Sci-Fi than any of the Trek universe as well. An argument could be made that the first 2 seasons of the new Battlestar Galactica are harder Sci-Fi than Trek. Does Star Trek seem like hard Sci-Fi compared to the "other" great "Sci-Fi" of the generations, Star Wars? Certainly, given how Star Wars is more or less a good old fashion fantasy story, just told in space.

The reality is there is almost no "hard" Sci-Fi that exists as a movie or TV show, and this is because they would generally fail due to the explanations given for the science.

Neverthless, trying to make me look like an idiot doesn't actually do anything for your argument, which I'm assuming is that the new STAR TREK is in line with the original material. Which it isn't, because Gene Roddenberry tried to explain the science of the universe he created, where as Abrams simply tried to distract the audience from the plot holes by blowing something up.

My argument was more that you are not familiar with the genre that is Sci-Fi. Roddenberry's explanations of the science in his universe are, generally, weak and requiring quite a bit of "science" magic compared to the many written works that have existed. At best, certain issues are addressed by just generating new, tech-magic like Inertial Dampeners.

Famine already addressed all of the concerns regarding the plot holes and un-Trek like science. I pretty much agree with him, and also agree it isn't enough to ruin the movie.

The real question, still, is why you feel the need to tell us about our poor taste for liking anything by Abrams. And not just slightly, but to repeatedly bash on it, claim it copies many things (which you've yet to provide a source for) all while saying you aren't even a fan of the genre.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

(which you've yet to provide a source for)

I'm going to completely ignore everything you said in that post until such time as you explain this comment. You've demanded that I provide sources for everything I have said. Why don't you demand the same thing of everyone else?

Once again, you're holding people to a double standard based on what you agree with. People you disagree with have to provide sources to back up their claims. People you agree with don't have to do anything of the sort.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm going to completely ignore everything you said in that post until such time as you explain this comment. You've demanded that I provide sources for everything I have said. Why don't you demand the same thing of everyone else?

Once again, you're holding people to a double standard based on what you agree with. People you disagree with have to provide sources to back up their claims. People you agree with don't have to do anything of the sort.

We've both asked you to explain how you know so much about Into Darkness and what it is supposed to be copying.

What is he or others in this discussion supposed to provide a source for? He isn't making fact-like claims about something that isn't public knowledge. You are.

 

[Azuremen]

I'm going to completely ignore everything you said in that post until such time as you explain this comment. You've demanded that I provide sources for everything I have said. Why don't you demand the same thing of everyone else?

Way to avoid responding to anything else I said

As Foolkiller has pointed out, you are the only here stating, quite matter of fact, that Into Darkness is nothing more than a blatant rip-off of other movies and stories. Yet, despite how often you've repeated this, you have not made a reasonable comparison, nor explained how it is you are so familiar with the plot to a movie that you've not seen. Thus, why we are asking for your sources, as you must clearly have some knowledge we don't that has lead you to be so adamant about this supposed plagiarism that you've made numerous posts about Into Darkness. All while reminding us how little of think of Abram and how you don't even care for the genre of Sci-Fi.

Why I've not asked anyone else here for sources is that they've made no claims requiring sources. On top of that, Famine and Foolkiller have been quite clear on their views, including details and comparisons. Both have said there are parts they are critical of in Star Trek (2009) and haven't been talking in circles. I myself went on to explain every point I've made, including comparisons to Firefly and discussed why Star Trek is hardly hard Sci-Fi.

And what is your response? A chunk of rhetoric sidestepping all the issues and, unsurprisingly, questioning my character. And all this because you have to convince us that we simply don't know better?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I have made it quite clear in the past five pages of discussion. JJ Abrams has a history of brazenly taking credit for other peoples' work. For example, he is credited as the visionary behind "Lost". However, in reality, all he did was direct an episode or two, co-write a screenplay with Damon Lindelhof (the actual person responsible for the show) and briefly oversee the day-to-day running of production. That's all.

So given that Abrams has a history of claiming credit for others' work, and the way the trailer shows images and themes that have been done time and time again in recent blockbusters, why should I believe that INTO DARKNESS contains a single original thought?

 

[Azuremen]

Still haven't answered any of the questions, just changed your point from "it is plagiarism" to "his other stuff was plagiarism, so this is too." As for Lost, I don't often hear him credited as visionary behind it, nor do I hear only his name mentioned by fans of it. Oddly enough, Damon Lindelhof is the co-writer for Into Darkness, and served as the co-producer for Star Trek (2009), so I'm not sure what your point is. Again. Besides your clear personal issues with Abrams, that exist for some reason I still can't fathom. It is as if he personally wronged you.

Clearly the people he is "stealing" from don't mind if they continue to work with him, right?

As for the trailer bit, what do you want them to do, give away major plot details or just allude to things? Honestly, the more vague and general a trailer is, and certainly less detailed, the better in my opinion.

Now please address the many other points as you claimed you would following my explanation.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have made it quite clear in the past five pages of discussion. JJ Abrams has a history of brazenly taking credit for other peoples' work. For example, he is credited as the visionary behind "Lost". However, in reality, all he did was direct an episode or two, co-write a screenplay with Damon Lindelhof (the actual person responsible for the show) and briefly oversee the day-to-day running of production. That's all.

Which episode or two was it that he directed and wrote. They wouldn't be any episodes to have won awards, attained high critical praise, and set the entire groundwork for the show, would they?

And by "co-write a screenplay" do you mean create the series bible, which lays out the original mythologies and groundwork for the entire show? You know, the thing the writers pull out to be sure they aren't breaking any major show rules (interesting when you look at how he altered Star Trek physics).

I still don't get your constant negativity against anything with Abrams' name on it. You admit you don't actually think he has anything to do with stuff with his name on it, yet you will go all negative nancy the moment his name comes up.

So given that Abrams has a history of claiming credit for others' work, and the way the trailer shows images and themes that have been done time and time again in recent blockbusters, why should I believe that INTO DARKNESS contains a single original thought?

You are free to believe anything. But you never said it was your opinion or your belief. In fact, you tried to get clever with my screen name to extrapolate on how bad it is.

I find it funny that you use the screen name "FoolKiller" and your custom title is "Don't be a fool", and yet you're totally willing to pay money to see INTO DARKNESS, which is foolish since you've already seen it - you just know it as a half-dozen other films.

It seems to me the only person who sounds like they have already seen it is you.

INTO DARKNESS is pretty much plagiarism of half a dozen different films. Abrams seems to be working on the logic that they are two - or in this case, six - great tastes that taste great together, and so stuck them all in a blender marked "Star Trek".

That almost sounds like a review.

And I fail to see how INTO DARKNESS can stand any chance of being faithful, given that it's just a mish-mash of half a dozen other, unrelated films.

Please, show us the film and point out the mish-mash. All I can find are trailers.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I can do that - but not without seriously spoiling the film for you.

 

[FoolKiller]

I can do that - but not without seriously spoiling the film for you.

Go ahead. I still have my copy of the Generations script somewhere.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Okay:

Spoiler

Benedict Cumberbatch plays Khan (operating under the name "John Harrison"). His story is that his ship went missing, but was found by people within Starfleet Command. They were revived and forced into doing Starfleet's dirty work to thwart the threat posed by the Klingons. This was illegal, and thus kept quiet. Some time later, Khan decides to take revenge against those who forced him to commit those atrocities, targeting Kirk to demonstrate that he was working for a corrupt organisation.

Now, consider this:

Spoiler

In SKYFALL, Javier Bardem plays Thiago Rodriguez (now working under the name "Raoul Silva"). His story is that he worked for British Intelligence in the 1990s, where he was based in Hong Kong and working for Judi Dench's M. Under M's direction, Rodriguez carried out a series of illegal operations against Chinese intelligence, penetrating their networks. When he made a mistake and got caught, M distanced herself from him and gave him to the Chinese to protect Britain's political interests during the handover of Hong Kong. Years later, Rodriguez decides to take revenge against her, targeting James Bond to prove that he is wokring for a corrupt organisation.

So, what do we have:

Spoiler

Two films with the same premise: a decorated agent is compromised by his superior officers. He decides to take revenge against them by targeting their star agent/captain, using the superiors' dark secrets to try and break the will of said agent/captain.

Although SKYFALL is only a recent release, the core story elements have existed for some time. They were conceived during production of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but MGM's financial problems meant that the film went into development hell. However, Sam Mendes signed on as director in 2009 when Daniel Craig approached him and explained dthe plans for the film.

 

[FoolKiller]

It sounds like you just described Into Darkness being Khan's backstory from before the Space Seed episode. Having it be moved up to the current timing sounds acceptable, considering how odd talking about his rise to power,after the Eugenics War, in 1992 would seem now.

Using a plot device that dates back to at least ancient mythology, and was used in the original telling of this rebooted story, makes it a copy of the most recent James Bond film how? If anything, you should be complaining that James Bond played into a huge cliché that is the basis for the motivation of about half of the comic book characters out there.

 

[David]

Simpsons did it.

 

[MrSulu]

I watched the first film through my fingers, I absolutely hated the new kirk, the red matter bollocks, destroying Romulus and Vulcan....WHY???!?!?!

Script Meeting-

p1: Lets destroy some planets, it looks cool!!1!

p2: Which planet?

p1: That green one, whats that one called?

p2: Romulus, its one of the most important planets in the star trek universe, are you quite sure about this?

p1: Yeah yeah, that one will do, we will just make some haphazard script to justify it, no one would understand the science anyway!

p2: ok, but I'm not sure how well that will be received

p1: I want to blow up another planet!

p2: ..............

Maybe they will be able to shoehorn in destroying Qu'onos in this one, or maybe Cardassia, just random cuts to planets blowing up for no apparent reason.



I'm not a big fan of Abrams in general, most of his stuff degrades into pointless gibberish over time (Lost, and Revolution looks like its going to do the same thing, only faster) But on the upside it would be rather difficult to accomplish such magnitudes of fail over the duration of a 2 hour film.

But I will reserve judgement until I have seen the film in full.

At the end of the day, NewTrek is better than NoTrek

Lets just hope he doesn't balls up the new star wars films eh

 

[FoolKiller]

And peace with Klingons brought about due to The Klingon home world becoming a near wasteland after the moon Praxis, and their primary energy source, explodes completely ruined the dynamic, which is why TNG was horrible...


Besides, Romulus was destroyed in the future, beyond any current storyline. I believe you mean Vulcan. I'm actually very curious to see what The Federation becomes without the large influence of the Vulcans. How different is The Federation from the Klingon or Romulan empires when their most logical member planet is decimated and not a technological or financial power?

 

[MrSulu]

TNG was horrible...

How very dare you!

The klingon-federation alliance took absolutely nothing away from star trek. In fact, it did the opposite and ushered in a wider horizon for the universe as a whole, bringing other major species to the forefront of storylines.

Oh and btw Vulcan was the second planet in my little script room scenario obviously.

 

[FoolKiller]

How very dare you!

The klingon-federation alliance took absolutely nothing away from star trek. In fact, it did the opposite and ushered in a wider horizon for the universe as a whole, bringing other major species to the forefront of storylines.

It was sarcasm, reflecting the sentiment first heard when TNG debuted. In my opinion, The Undiscovered Country is the second-best Star Trek film, behind Wrath of Khan.

You do realize that after complaining about Romulus being destroyed you have defended the near-exact same premise occuring on the Klingon side of the storyline, right? Imagine if, instead of using the destruction of Romulus as a time travel plot device, the film stayed in the original storyline. The Romulan Empire and the Federation must reach a treaty to save the Romulan people, but the hatred of a Romulan, named Nero, leads him to attempt to thwart peace. Now, replace Romulan with Klingon and Nero with Chang. Same story. Only it was a reboot, so time travel was tossed in the middle.

Oh and btw Vulcan was the second planet in my little script room scenario obviously.

But the destruction of Romulus is centuries in the future from the current timeline, so only the destruction of Vulcan is important. How it affects the universe as a whole is yet to be seen (and I don't have faith in Orci and Kurtzman to show it properly), but it does force Spock to fast forward his emotional and logical conflicts and reach the kind of personality that took three seasons, a death, a resurrection, a confrontation with a zealot half-brother, and the killing of God to achieve. And with that, any differences between Quinto and Nimoy Spocks is explained.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

A good example of hard science fiction would be Armored Trooper Votoms, if only there's a good director that would make space hard sci fi movie that makes you feel how fragile human race is.

 

[MrSulu]

It was sarcasm, reflecting the sentiment first heard when TNG debuted. In my opinion, The Undiscovered Country is the second-best Star Trek film, behind Wrath of Khan.

You do realize that after complaining about Romulus being destroyed you have defended the near-exact same premise occuring on the Klingon side of the storyline, right? Imagine if, instead of using the destruction of Romulus as a time travel plot device, the film stayed in the original storyline. The Romulan Empire and the Federation must reach a treaty to save the Romulan people, but the hatred of a Romulan, named Nero, leads him to attempt to thwart peace. Now, replace Romulan with Klingon and Nero with Chang. Same story. Only it was a reboot, so time travel was tossed in the middle.


But the destruction of Romulus is centuries in the future from the current timeline, so only the destruction of Vulcan is important. How it affects the universe as a whole is yet to be seen (and I don't have faith in Orci and Kurtzman to show it properly), but it does force Spock to fast forward his emotional and logical conflicts and reach the kind of personality that took three seasons, a death, a resurrection, a confrontation with a zealot half-brother, and the killing of God to achieve. And with that, any differences between Quinto and Nimoy Spocks is explained.

Sarcasm aside, the first season of TNG could have been better yes, Troi was incredibly annoying! The episode "Conspiracy" really got the ball rolling (And yes I agree ST VI is my second favourite aswell 👍 )

Destroying a moon, and a homeworld aren't even remotely close to the same thing. With Praxis gone, Qu'onos still played a massive part in TNG, as did Vulcan to a lesser extent. Once you start Blowing up actual planets however, you have very little room for manouver. They shouldn't have done it, its utterly gratuitous.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sarcasm aside, the first season of TNG could have been better yes, Troi was incredibly annoying! The episode "Conspiracy" really got the ball rolling (And yes I agree ST VI is my second favourite aswell 👍 )

I'm purely referring to the people who took one look at Warf and went, "WHAT!!!!?" It was a major change in the known storyline of the time, upsetting the entire dynamic that fans knew.

Destroying a moon, and a homeworld aren't even remotely close to the same thing. With Praxis gone, Qu'onos still played a massive part in TNG, as did Vulcan to a lesser extent.

In Star Trek VI Qu'onos was becoming radioactive and there were questions regarding its habitability. With no source of energy and a homeworld that was becoming inhabitable the Klingon empire was gone. The ultimate effect of destroying Romulus would have been about the same. But destroying Romulus didn't matter at all, other than to give our villain motivation.

Once you start Blowing up actual planets however, you have very little room for manouver.

Unless you are trying to reboot a franchise with 50 years of canon. Then you just have yourself tons of room to maneuver that you didn't have otherwise. It's an over-the-top move, but it frees the new storyline to have the political aspects go in a million directions.

They shouldn't have done it, its utterly gratuitous.

I don't think you give the affect it has credit. Spock's emotional development has been fast forwarded by decades and the story won't need to adhere to events from previous shows and films. There were probably better ways to do this, but none that could definitively wipe out most previous continuity with one act.

 

[CodeRedR51]

So it's out. Any thoughts? Surprised by anything?

I'll save my thoughts for when I get to a real computer.

 

[ShobThaBob]

It was a good action movie in space with a Star Trek background.

 

[DeathSmiles]

Love love loved it. And not even a huge ST fan, but that was amazing. Better than the first.

 

[FoolKiller]

I saw it today on IMAX 3D. It was very good. From a first viewing I didn't pick out any glaring potholes the way I did in the first one. There were plenty of moments or lines given as a nod to the old-school fans. There was even a moment that points all the way back to a single episode of The Original Series. It was fun and exciting and great blockbuster stuff for all sci-fi/action fans.


All that said, I seriously want to sit the writers and Abrams down and have a very long discussion regarding physics, particularly Star Trek physics.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Does that moment is directly a homage to the Wrath of Khan ? The revenge plot by genetically enhanced man, the Spock death scene in the warp chamber ?

 

[Dave A]

Does that moment is directly a homage to the Wrath of Khan ? The revenge plot by genetically enhanced man, the Spock death scene in the warp chamber ?

The whole film is essentially a reworking of The Wrath of Khan but there are a lot of pointers to the episode that set up the film in the original series.

 

[FoolKiller]

Does that moment is directly a homage to the Wrath of Khan ? The revenge plot by genetically enhanced man, the Spock death scene in the warp chamber ?

I speak of a briefly shown experiment with troublesome furry creatures.

Spoiler

Bones injects a Tribble with Khan's blood because he is curious about its regenerative properties. And true fans all know about the Trouble with Tribbles.

And Wrath of Khan is not an episode.

But way to throw out some spoilers. The film has only been out in the US for a weekend.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I saw the trailer and it shows one scene similar to Wrath of Khan, then I read about Benedict's character known alias as Khan

Spoiler

and he seem to command a Starfleet ship in the trailer. From the trailer alone I see the connection to Wrath of Khan Not sure about Genesis device is in the movie or the origin of Benedict's character in Into Darkness, but I suspect it's about revenge ( either to Kirk or Federation ).

I haven't watched the movie yet or read about it's plot, just a little curious about it and the trailer give away too much I think

Spoiler

- someone from the Enterprise might die and back alive again, though not sure how or if it has something to do with a device or not.

Ahh, Tribbles, so Bones tried to revive someone

 

[FoolKiller]

Again, you realize I used spoiler tags for a reason, right? Directly referencing what I said negates that.

In short: Spoiler your post.

And if you haven't seen the film why are you asking me which specific moment I meant? It wasn't even a full scene, but an aside.