Why does the entire Federation has to be in DANGER to feel significant?nebagram wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:14 pmThe first one most definitely wasn't. Beyond itself as a film is far superior than Into Darkness and arguably better than the first JJA film. For starters, Kirk's not an entitled douchebag all the time. The problem with it (Beyond, that is- I won't go into STID's problems here as it took Chuck nearly an hour)- is that, as many have said, it's just a 'monster of the week' film. It's the Insurrection of the reboot films- fun in its own way (and while others hated it, I still quite like Insurrection) but doesn't feel significant, like the 2009 film did with the destruction of Vulcan or even STID did with the introduction of Cumberkhan. Hell, even Nemesis felt significant with the death of Data. You could argue that Beyond has the destruction of the Enterprise in it, but so what? They built another one by the end of the film. It took a whole other film for Shatner's Kirk to get a new one. (highlight for spoilers).Durandal_1707 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:49 amThe trailers for Beyond were not an accurate representation of the film.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 amWell you should be skeptical about what trailers "claim," so to speak. Buzz for the movie was good as far as I can tell.
Star Trek: Into Darkness
- Karha of Honor
- Captain
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:46 pm
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
- Yukaphile
- Overlord
- Posts: 8778
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:14 am
- Location: Rabid Posting World
- Contact:
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Gene Roddenberry wanted a utopia. Utopia has to be threatened from the outside in order to actually matter.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
-
- Captain
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:43 pm
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Alice Eve said she didn't feel exploited, and I won't get offended on her behalf, but I was annoyed by the scene for lack of subtlety.
I probably should be offended by Leia's bikini, but I think seeing her run around on Jabba's barge in it gave me puberty. I think Fisher didn't like it, but she had a sense of humor about it, which is one of the reasons I like her.
I probably should be offended by Leia's bikini, but I think seeing her run around on Jabba's barge in it gave me puberty. I think Fisher didn't like it, but she had a sense of humor about it, which is one of the reasons I like her.
-
- Captain
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:04 pm
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I have seen Space Seed and am watching it right now (2018 is when we're supposed to figure out space travel without cryosleep by the way), and you are wrong- they don't know who Khan is and they note that records from the time of the Eugenics Wars are incomplete. They also note that the fact that Khan and his crew were missing was covered up by the governments of the world in order to avoid a panic.Actarus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:43 am I really didn't like what they did with Khan in that movie. Just the way the crew reacts to the revelation that Harrisson is really Khan. " My real name is... Khan!" "Who?" And then you have Kelvin Spock calling Prime Spock to know if he has ever heard of some guy named Khan... That's ridiculous. In the tv show, everyone knew exactly who Khan was. Scotty even said that he was his favorite tyrant, to Spock's dismay. He is known to be the main protagonist of the Eugenic Wars. It is as if today someone would say "Napoleon Bonaparte? Never heard of him."
Yes, they recognise him when they bring up the records, but they don't recognise him on sight and they don't recognise him even when he tells them that his name is Khan- it's really a plot hole that Scotty admired him all along yet didn't recognise him on sight, nor did anyone else. ST:ID is consistent with the episode and how he's revealed.
- Durandal_1707
- Captain
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:24 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
It doesn't have to be threatened every goddamn time. There are other kinds of stories that you can tell in the setting.
There are plenty of episodes of the various series that don't involve imminent danger to the entire Federation and are considered among the best. Measure of a Man. The Inner Light. Duet. The Visitor. None of these had galaxy-shattering stakes, and they all were very well received.
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I never said it did. Search for Spock is IMHO an underrated classic and that's very insignificant from the perspective of the whole Federation. But to Kirk and company, it's extremely significant, and that's what makes it a classic. By comparison The Motion Picture sees a giant space prove threaten all life on Earth, and feels meh by comparison.Slash Gallagher wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:17 pmWhy does the entire Federation has to be in DANGER to feel significant?nebagram wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:14 pmThe first one most definitely wasn't. Beyond itself as a film is far superior than Into Darkness and arguably better than the first JJA film. For starters, Kirk's not an entitled douchebag all the time. The problem with it (Beyond, that is- I won't go into STID's problems here as it took Chuck nearly an hour)- is that, as many have said, it's just a 'monster of the week' film. It's the Insurrection of the reboot films- fun in its own way (and while others hated it, I still quite like Insurrection) but doesn't feel significant, like the 2009 film did with the destruction of Vulcan or even STID did with the introduction of Cumberkhan. Hell, even Nemesis felt significant with the death of Data. You could argue that Beyond has the destruction of the Enterprise in it, but so what? They built another one by the end of the film. It took a whole other film for Shatner's Kirk to get a new one. (highlight for spoilers).Durandal_1707 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:49 amThe trailers for Beyond were not an accurate representation of the film.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 amWell you should be skeptical about what trailers "claim," so to speak. Buzz for the movie was good as far as I can tell.
Another way of putting it: Search for Spock is 'the one where they sacrifice the Enterprise to being back Spock'. First Contact is 'the one with the Borg in it'. The first JJA film is 'the one with two Spocks where they destroy Vulcan'. Even STID is 'the one pretending to be Wrath of Khan'. By comparison, Insurrection is 'the one where some stuff happens' and Beyond, as good as it is, is 'the one where some other stuff happens, but Idris Elba's in it'.
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11636
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Yeah I wouldn't really say it was an issue with Eve. More of a matter between sex being inserted into Star Trek and how it portrays women.Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:56 pm Alice Eve said she didn't feel exploited, and I won't get offended on her behalf, but I was annoyed by the scene for lack of subtlety.
I probably should be offended by Leia's bikini, but I think seeing her run around on Jabba's barge in it gave me puberty. I think Fisher didn't like it, but she had a sense of humor about it, which is one of the reasons I like her.
..What mirror universe?
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Well, it felt more like Star Trek than the first 2 films in the Klineverse, that's significantnebagram wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:14 pmThe first one most definitely wasn't. Beyond itself as a film is far superior than Into Darkness and arguably better than the first JJA film. For starters, Kirk's not an entitled douchebag all the time. The problem with it (Beyond, that is- I won't go into STID's problems here as it took Chuck nearly an hour)- is that, as many have said, it's just a 'monster of the week' film. It's the Insurrection of the reboot films- fun in its own way (and while others hated it, I still quite like Insurrection) but doesn't feel significant, like the 2009 film did with the destruction of Vulcan or even STID did with the introduction of Cumberkhan. Hell, even Nemesis felt significant with the death of Data. You could argue that Beyond has the destruction of the Enterprise in it, but so what? They built another one by the end of the film. It took a whole other film for Shatner's Kirk to get a new one. (highlight for spoilers).Durandal_1707 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:49 amThe trailers for Beyond were not an accurate representation of the film.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 amWell you should be skeptical about what trailers "claim," so to speak. Buzz for the movie was good as far as I can tell.
The aftermath of STD plus the terrible ad campaigns screwed this film's chances at success. It same thing is kind of happening to Bumblebee, the actual good Transformers live action film isn't making big money in its opening week because people finally got tired of the Bayformers franchise after suffering through 5 movies.
Also this the general gist of many conversations I came across with some members of the Trek fandom:
Trek fan 1: Discovery is a major disappointment, Trek hasn't been good since DS9 ended
Trek fan 2: What about Star Trek Beyond, that movie was actually good.
fan 1: Good, that third film in the reboot series? I find that hard to believe.
fan 2: Have you seen it?
fan 1: No, after Into Darkness, there's no way it can come back from that
fan 2: Just give Beyond a chance
fan 1: I don't wanna
fan 2: *sighs*
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11636
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
I agree with every point here more or less. I don't really "like" Insurrection or so much dislike it. Being a follow up to First Contact though... I just can't. Does not compute. But yeah I agree about Nemesis, mainly with Data's eulogy leading into his counterpart being briefed by Picard.nebagram wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:14 pmThe first one most definitely wasn't. Beyond itself as a film is far superior than Into Darkness and arguably better than the first JJA film. For starters, Kirk's not an entitled douchebag all the time. The problem with it (Beyond, that is- I won't go into STID's problems here as it took Chuck nearly an hour)- is that, as many have said, it's just a 'monster of the week' film. It's the Insurrection of the reboot films- fun in its own way (and while others hated it, I still quite like Insurrection) but doesn't feel significant, like the 2009 film did with the destruction of Vulcan or even STID did with the introduction of Cumberkhan. Hell, even Nemesis felt significant with the death of Data. You could argue that Beyond has the destruction of the Enterprise in it, but so what? They built another one by the end of the film. It took a whole other film for Shatner's Kirk to get a new one. (highlight for spoilers).Durandal_1707 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:49 amThe trailers for Beyond were not an accurate representation of the film.BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 amWell you should be skeptical about what trailers "claim," so to speak. Buzz for the movie was good as far as I can tell.
..What mirror universe?
Re: Star Trek: Into Darkness
Maybe it was meant as an attempt to solve global warming by putting people off sex for ever.Admiral X wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:18 amAre you seriously contending that Kirk in his underwear was not meant to titillate anyone?BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:22 pm Honestly do you equate the context of the two scenes?
No, wait. That was Profit & Lace
Soulless minion of orthodoxy.