Star Trek Into Darkness

Aspiring Mogul said:
Good point about bringing criminals to trial. But was there any discussion of the pros and cons? I don't remember that.
Click to expand...

This was the huge choice that Kirk had to make. Admiral Marcus ordered a photon torpedo strike (Drone strike) from the neutral zone. Kirk was all over it. On the way to the ship, Spock argues that this executive order, by one man, is wrong and that the right thing to do would be to bring the criminal to trial. Kirk disagrees and goes off on Spock, to which Spock says something like "the fact that you have resorted to name-calling must mean that I have a valid point."

Later, when the ship is in firing position, Kirk makes an announcement to the crew. He wants to fire, but he looks to Spock and then back at the intercom, where he announces that he will go to Kronos to apprehend the criminal, so he can be brought back to trial. By doing so, he must now risk his life to do it. Spock stands next to him and says to Kirk that he has made the right choice. Of course, this puts the whole crew in jeopardy, as Marcus becomes incensed. It really is a huge crux of the plot.


Anyway, here's an article saying ST has lost its mission of dealing with moral issues.
Click to expand...

I haven't read that, but this movie deals with a lot of moral issues, from Kirk not respecting the chair, how far a man will go for his friend, as well as his crew, the Prime Directive and the issue I wrote about, above.



A good contrast is the TOS episode, "A Private Little War", where Kirk and company deal with the moral dilemma of arming natives.
Click to expand...

Klingons arm one side, so the Federation must arm the other to balance power. That was good. In fact, I took a "nerd" pic for you! The episode is in the foreground.

StarTrekpose.jpg
 
Last edited:
Okay, I think I misrepresented myself, when I described the aforementioned scene as "cheesy and hokey". Actually, I think the scene worked VERY well, and I also got teary-eyed. In fact, I think it could be argued that the "remake" of that particular scene works better than the original, because of how it is set up, from the very beginning of the movie, and continuously through it.

I guess it's just the entire concept of lifting a scene that bugged me.
As soon as Kirk and Scotty talked about how there's only one way to fix the ship, we knew exactly which scene we'd be seeing in about ten minutes. At that point, I groaned.
The execution of the scene was GREAT, but I still kinda wish they hadn't done it.

By the way, I don't know how so many people are missing what I feel are very obvious criticisms of
the tactics being used in America's war on terror. And I'm not just talking about in this thread, but most critics I've read online.
Aspiring Mogul, I disagree with your assertion that it only happens at a superficial level. The morality play in this movie is the absolute core of the plot, and in the end, good
(Star Trek Ideals)
wins over bad
(blatant metaphor for USA military industrial complex)
.

P.S. Guys, you really should be using more spoiler tags.
 
OK, here's a review by Forbes and another one by Slashdot, both of which say what I'm feeling - that the actors are making caricatures of the original characters, and it's pretty weak compared to TOS, especially without the moral dilemmas. Yes, they discuss the issue, but maybe there's no chemistry between these actors, as opposed to others.

I can't explain it, and I may change my mind if I see it again, but, somehow, the intellectual aspect is missing, the character chemistry is missing.

Does anyone else feel the same?
 
This debate between Picard and Data is an example of the moral dilemma I like. I didn't see much of that in the new movie, or, at least, any debate seemed superficial - but, as I said, I may have to see it again.

I can't put the Youtube on my post, so maybe someone can help me. :)

If I do a web series, I will focus on issues, as opposed to pure action.
 
Saw it yesterday, and have to say it's one of the few big summer blockbusters I can remember that I was completely satisfied with. I felt like they did a good job of balancing the ideals/morality aspects of the story, character development, and action. I think it was maybe slightly on the heavy side with the nods to previous films, although to be honest it's entirely justified within the world of the film - these are not only people who are living out a world of stories that the audience is aware of, but actually one that some of the characters have awareness of as well.

But now the real question - next weekend can FF6 top STITD in living up to/exceeding my expectations??? Will it retain the careful balance of heavy character driven morality issue storytelling with the smell of NOS in the morning?

JoshL said:
but the one with the whales, really?
Click to expand...

That one is actually maybe my second favorite behind Kahn. Just watched the second half on tv recently, and something occurred to me that I never really thought of before. It's nice that they get the whales back, and everyone's all happy and clapping and like 'you saved the world yay" and whatnot.

But somehow nobody seems to have noticed that they INVENTED F'NG TIME TRAVEL?!?!!!!
 
ItDonnedOnMe said:
It's nice that they get the whales back, and everyone's all happy and clapping and like 'you saved the world yay" and whatnot..........But somehow nobody seems to have noticed that they INVENTED F'NG TIME TRAVEL?!?!!!!
Click to expand...

That's because time travel is old hat to Kirk, Spock, et al. It's at least the 5th time they've gone back. :lol: The other 4 times:

"Tomorrow is Yesterday," the Enterprise is catapulted back to the 1960's and the Air Force scrambles a fighter jet to intercept this "UFO." They end up beaming the pilot aboard, when his plane breaks up.

"Assignment Earth," Kirk and crew go back to the 60's to monitor a launch.

"City On The Edge Of Forever," Kirk and Spock chase McCoy back to pre-World War 2, because McCoy saves a pacifist woman who causes America to lose the war.

"All Our Yesterdays," Kirk, Spock and McCoy are sent to different eras of earth's past.
 
Scoopicman said:
That's because time travel is old hat to Kirk, Spock, et al. It's at least the 5th time they've gone back. :lol: The other 4 times:

"Tomorrow is Yesterday," the Enterprise is catapulted back to the 1960's and the Air Force scrambles a fighter jet to intercept this "UFO." They end up beaming the pilot aboard, when his plane breaks up.

"Assignment Earth," Kirk and crew go back to the 60's to monitor a launch.

"City On The Edge Of Forever," Kirk and Spock chase McCoy back to pre-World War 2, because McCoy saves a pacifist woman who causes America to lose the war.

"All Our Yesterdays," Kirk, Spock and McCoy are sent to different eras of earth's past.
Click to expand...

There's an episode of DS9, I think it is, where a time-travel paradox investigator refers to Kirk as "one of the worst offenders". I think it's the Trials & Tribble-Ations episode. :lol:

.
 
Zensteve said:
There's an episode of DS9, I think it is, where a time-travel paradox investigator refers to Kirk as "one of the worst offenders". I think it's the Trials & Tribble-Ations episode. :lol:

.
Click to expand...

I was going to refer to that episode. But my problem is, what's the big deal with going back in time?
 
Scoopicman said:
That's because time travel is old hat to Kirk, Spock, et al. It's at least the 5th time they've gone back. :lol:
Click to expand...

My point exactly though... every time it happens nobody seems to really acknowledge it. Wouldn't this be the biggest deal of all time (pun intended)?

Warp drive? Whatever dude, I've got time travel! But no, everybody's just all 'thanks for the whales!'

I suppose the answer is simply that as convenient a plot device as time travel is, it becomes decidedly inconvenient once you have to deal with it on an ongoing basis. Which, as it happens, is the plot of a script I'm working on for a short...
 
I'm a sucker for all things Time Travel. I like it when they have to fix something that went terribly wrong. RETROACTIVE is such a movie that I thought was done well. One movie, THE CALLER, had to do with a telephone that connected two women who were in different timelines (about 25 years apart). The woman in the past thoroughly screws up the life of the woman in the present. Some disturbing ideas are in it.
 
I just saw it and I'm not sure whether or not I liked it. I enjoyed it, but at the same time I think they overdid it with the fan service and twisting of the Khan plot. Too much stinky cheese and not the good kind.
 
Aspiring Mogul -- I don't think there was much debate in this movie. Yeah, sure, a couple characters briefly argue the morality of what they're doing, but it's pretty clear who wins the debate, and I don't think the audience should be left wondering exactly what kind of statement the movie is making. I can't currently watch the clip you posted, only because I'm waiting on a render, and can't bog down my PC's RAM. However, as a Next Gen guy, one of the things I liked about the show was the moral ambiguity. They would ask questions, but not really answer them. This latest Trek, however, answers the question. There's definitely a difference there, and I personally appreciate both.

And TIME TRAVEL! Don't you love it?! One out of every three Trek movies involves time travel! :lol:
 
Cracker Funk said:
Aspiring Mogul -- I don't think there was much debate in this movie. Yeah, sure, a couple characters briefly argue the morality of what they're doing, but it's pretty clear who wins the debate, and I don't think the audience should be left wondering exactly what kind of statement the movie is making.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is my problem, Cracker Funk. If they wanted to discuss the morality or lack thereof, Kirk and Spock should have discussed whether they can bring him to trial - for example, one of the issues in getting OBL was if evidence can hold up at trial. The head of the CIA said that the evidence that's considered reliaible in intelligence gathering would not be considered reliable in a court of law - he also didn't mention the fact that some evidence cannot be revealed to judges who were not Americans.

Furthermore, there is also the issue of the reliability of international courts, because some see them as corrupt and biased against America. This could also have been discussed.

I'm not going to give my thoughts on these issues, but, suffice to say, a lot more discussion could have been made in the movie.

Anyway, I also like time travel. :)
 
Just watched the movie.

Is it me or the cinematography was "meh" sometimes ?

The faces felt distorted on some shots. The constant rack focusing brought focus breathing issues (they could have picked another lens :/) and obviously, the overuse of lens flares...

Apart from that, I frickin' loved it.
 
The only thing I didn't like was the filmmakers' obvious misunderstanding of the Prime Directive.

In the beginning, they are working to stop a volcano from destroying a tribal alien species, and Spock gets pissed at Kirk because he reveals the ship, violating the Prime Directive. However, by interfering on their planet by stopping the volcano, they are already violating the Prime Directive. Made little sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top