Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[Jaitea]

The movie starts mentioning the importance of protecting the prime directive....why did they fly the Enterprise into the atmosphere of a planet and hide under water (?) and risked being seen, when they could have 'beamed' down to the planet, why did they save the natives from the volcano, that would be breaking the prime directive also?

I honestly don't know why people are defending this movie, it really is one of the poorest films (story only...effects were fantastic) that I have ever seen

I saw the film, enjoyed it, got goosebumps when the Enterprise rose out through the clouds (Beautiful)......but over the next few days as I thought about it, it fell apart.

Similar when you get a salesman trying to convince you to buy his product at a market, it all looks good as he demonstrates it, but when you get home it dawns on you that you've been conned

........my opinion....sorry

.....and someone said that how could this film ruin Star Trek....well I don't own the ST'09 BD, I was waiting to buy a twin pack of both films,....but now this movie has tainted my feelings for ST'09

J

 

[Bryancd]

I know you think you're being really witty here, but you're still quoting me out of context. I was clearly not discussing the film itself..

True, but that was funny.

 

[Jeyl]

I know you think you're being really witty here, but you're still quoting me out of context. I was clearly not discussing the film itself..

Out of context? The whole point of my reply was to show how what you thought of me was exactly how I felt about STID. Since you clearly don't like me, making that comparison would probably give you an idea on why I don't like STID.

 

[jlee562]

The movie starts mentioning the importance of protecting the prime directive....why did they fly the Enterprise into the atmosphere of a planet and hide under water (?) and risked being seen, when they could have 'beamed' down to the planet, why did they save the natives from the volcano, that would be breaking the prime directive also?

I honestly don't know why people are defending this movie, it really is one of the poorest films (story only...effects were fantastic) that I have ever seen

I saw the film, enjoyed it, got goosebumps when the Enterprise rose out through the clouds (Beautiful)......but over the next few days as I thought about it, it fell apart.

Similar when you get a salesman trying to convince you to buy his product at a market, it all looks good as he demonstrates it, but when you get home it dawns on you that you've been conned

........my opinion....sorry

.....and someone said that how could this film ruin Star Trek....well I don't own the ST'09 BD, I was waiting to buy a twin pack of both films,....but now this movie has tainted my feelings for ST'09

J

The whole point of the cold open sequence was that Kirk broke the prime directive. Hence he was removed from command. I thought this was actually a decent way of dealing with the criticism that people had of the first movie saying that Kirk got promoted too fast. STID acknowledges this, and shows that Kirk wasn't ready for command.

 

[Bryancd]

Out of context? The whole point of my reply was to show how what you thought of me was exactly how I felt about STID. Since you clearly don't like me, making that comparison would probably give you an idea on why I don't like STID.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't dislike you. I don't KNOW you from Adam. I don't much care for your online personae, however, which I consider a choice people make.

 

[jlee562]

Out of context? The whole point of my reply was to show how what you thought of me was exactly how I felt about STID. Since you clearly don't like me, making that comparison would probably give you an idea on why I don't like STID.

Yes Jeyl, out of context.

When you refer to a sentence in which I was discussing some people's criticisms, and then you say: "At least now the film and I have something in common," you have removed my words which you were quoting, from their context.

Your retort is literally nonsensical. Since I made no reference to the film, you cannot "have something in common" with the film based on the selection of words quoted.

As far as not liking you, I don't know you. I just don't think you present very good arguments. And I also don't appreciate the fact that you have continued to post fragments of my writings to respond to, in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly asked you not to do so and instead deal with the entirety of my arguments (much like Dan did above). If you want to make that personal, knock yourself out. But my intention is not to convey any personal enmity.

 

[Riceball]

The movie starts mentioning the importance of protecting the prime directive....why did they fly the Enterprise into the atmosphere of a planet and hide under water (?) and risked being seen, when they could have 'beamed' down to the planet, why did they save the natives from the volcano, that would be breaking the prime directive also?

They explained as having something to do with atmospheric interference due to emissions coming from the volcano. Of course this doesn't explain why they couldn't have beamed in elsewhere and walked in but it's possible the nearest 'safe' beam in site was too far to be within reasonable walking distance of the temple. It's a bit contrived I'll admit but it's not all that much worse than some of the other excuses for certain things that they've come up with in previous Treks.

As for the blood thing, that one they didn't explain but it's been conjectured here that McCoy wanted Khan's blood specifically to play it safe. He knew without a doubt that Khhn's blood had miraculous capabilities but he didn't know for certain that it wasn't something unique to Kahn and that he would get the same results from the blood of the other supermen. True that McCoy could have thawed out one of Khan's crew enough to draw blood and run tests but that might have taken more time than he thought he had or he didn't know what to look for. Regardless, it's one of those things you just have to suspend your disbelief on as it was clearly written as an excuse to shoot that chase and fight scene.

 

[Jaitea]

The whole point of the cold open sequence was that Kirk broke the prime directive. Hence he was removed from command. I thought this was actually a decent way of dealing with the criticism that people had of the first movie saying that Kirk got promoted too fast. STID acknowledges this, and shows that Kirk wasn't ready for command.

I thought Kirk got demoted for exposing the Enterprise to the natives while rescuing Spock from the volcano, thus violating the prime directive, but why have the Enterprise on the planet in the first place, why rescue the natives breaking the prime directive.

Yes Kirk was Captain & made those decisions but logical Spock only moans (and would give up his life) about the prime directive when Kirk tries to rescue him, why did Spock come up with a 'Cold Fusion' (?) solution for saving the natives form the volcano when this act breaks the PD......likewise flying a 'Starship' (built in factories in space because theres no way that thing could fly in a planets atmosphere....but anyway, I kinda thought it looked cool) onto a planet must have got Spocks blessing.......hmmm

Think about it

J

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless, it's one of those things you just have to suspend your disbelief on as it was clearly written as an excuse to shoot that chase and fight scene.

Thats it exactly, the whole film was written around cool scenes.....and my suspenders snapped

J

 

[jlee562]

I thought Kirk got demoted for exposing the Enterprise to the natives while rescuing Spock from the volcano, thus violating the prime directive, but why have the Enterprise on the planet in the first place, why rescue the natives breaking the prime directive.

Yes Kirk was Captain & made those decisions but logical Spock only moans (and would give up his life) about the prime directive when Kirk tries to rescue him, why did Spock come up with a 'Cold Fusion' (?) solution for saving the natives form the volcano when this act breaks the PD......likewise flying a 'Starship' (built in factories in space because theres no way that thing could fly in a planets atmosphere....but anyway, I kinda thought it looked cool) onto a planet must have got Spocks blessing.......hmmm

Think about it

J

- - - Updated - - -



Thats it exactly, the whole film was written around cool scenes.....and my suspenders snapped

J

You answered your own question. They were there because Kirk wanted to go, which was the wrong choice. Hence, Kirk gets punished for it.

As far as the other issues, they have been addressed in this thread ad nauseum. I have no further comment than what I've already said on those topics in the preceding pages.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

There's an idea. What would happen if we just stopped responding?

I have been saying this for months! :lol

However, I just find it entertaining now. opcorn

 

[Jaitea]

You answered your own question. They were there because Kirk wanted to go, which was the wrong choice. Hence, Kirk gets punished for it.

But are we to believe that Spock forgot about the PD up until Kirk suggested exposing the ship to the natives, as I said in that post Spock was willing to lay down his life rather than break the PD, but on the other hand he breaks the PD by coming up with a way to freeze the volcano

As far as the other issues, they have been addressed in this thread ad nauseum. I have no further comment than what I've already said on those topics in the preceding pages.

Sorry

J

 

[Adenides]

At least now the film and I have something in common.

Greetings,

I thought it was a witty remark.

(And from the sounds of it, I think someone needs a hug!)

-Peace-

 

[Jeyl]

The whole point of the cold open sequence was that Kirk broke the prime directive. Hence he was removed from command. I thought this was actually a decent way of dealing with the criticism that people had of the first movie saying that Kirk got promoted too fast. STID acknowledges this, and shows that Kirk wasn't ready for command.

To be perfectly honest, I think Kirk's command being taken away was a bit too extreme because it was done for the wrong wrong reasons. It shouldn't have been simply because he broke the Prime Directive, it should have been because he lied about it in his log. For one thing, Kirk was trying to help a pre-warp civilization survive a violent volcano, so he has the interest in the well being of others established. Second is that his whole crew were with him on this decision. Whether it was all him or the help of Spock, or whatever, everyone was convinced this was the right thing to do and everyone joined in, risks and all. Third, he makes a pretty big decision that would wind up violating the Prime Directive even more with the reveal of the Enterprise to the natives in order to save Spock. I mean, Spock is part of an endangered species and helped save Earth in the last movie, and despite the writer's attempt at making Spock's reason to willingly die be a logical one, Spock should know better by now that his life will have a much bigger role to play in the shaping of the galaxy after meeting Prime Spock.

Kirk made the right choices on that planet, but he shouldn't have lied about it. This would have made for a nice call back to another instance where a young, promising Starfleet officer lied about an incident.

Picard: The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based! And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform!​

And that should be it. If Kirk had only been more upfront about what he had done, maybe Starfleet and Pike would have been more understanding of his actions and less about breaking directives. He has to stand by his choices and explain why, as a Captain who makes tough choices, it was the right thing to do. We saved a pre-warp civilization from extinction, saved one of Starfleet's best and brightest officers that we should be indebted to, and the effects caused by exposing the Enterprise to the locals may not be catastrophic. Sure, it could end up being bad, but it's not good decision making if you base all your decisions solely on the possibility of a bad outcome. It winds up being less of a moral choice and more of a choice between who lives and who dies.

This is what Pike should have lectured Kirk about since Kirk's actions on the planet fits in with the reasons why Pike WANTED KIRK TO JOIN STARFLEET IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Pike: You know, that instinct to leap without looking, that was his nature too, and in my opinion, it's something Starfleet's lost.​

And that's the big problem with this film. The writers don't even know that they have material in their own works to make these scenes have more meaning instead of writing it off as "Kirk loses his command. That's it." They could have even brought those elements up in the bar scene rather than Pike simply saying "I believe in you Jim".

 

[SSgt Burton]

I thought Kirk got demoted for exposing the Enterprise to the natives while rescuing Spock from the volcano, thus violating the prime directive, but why have the Enterprise on the planet in the first place, why rescue the natives breaking the prime directive.

Yes Kirk was Captain & made those decisions but logical Spock only moans (and would give up his life) about the prime directive when Kirk tries to rescue him, why did Spock come up with a 'Cold Fusion' (?) solution for saving the natives form the volcano when this act breaks the PD......likewise flying a 'Starship' (built in factories in space because theres no way that thing could fly in a planets atmosphere....but anyway, I kinda thought it looked cool) onto a planet must have got Spocks blessing.......hmmm

Think about it

J

- - - Updated - - -



Thats it exactly, the whole film was written around cool scenes.....and my suspenders snapped

J

Kirk was in command. So the idea of there being "Spock's blessing" I think is redundant. Once Kirk made up his mind to save the natives, Spock would follow his orders.

As for starships not being able to fly through an atmosphere- the original Enterprise flew through Earth's atmosphere in Tomorrow is Yesterday without breaking up.

Again the concept that a starship "has" to be built in space because it would crush itself under it's own mass if built on Earth was abolished in 2009 Trek film.


But...

This really isn't about starships or cold fusion devices.

This is truly about whether you enjoyed the film or not. If you didn't because you felt the story premise was weak, the acting was lackluster or the direction was poor, there's nothing wrong with that.

However nitpicking plot points, incontinuities (discontinuities?), or changed premises to show "how bad this film is" is counter productive.

For instance the idea of Khan beaming allllllll the way to Kronos had me rolling my eyes a bit. However I give the writers an A for effort for at least "trying" to explain that he used an experimental device with Scotty's transwarp beaming formula.

On the flipside there is no real explanation on how the scentists and explorers aboard the Starship Reliant managed to mistake an entire planet for another in Wrath of Khan. Which we can all agree was Trek at its finest hour.

The point is that if you like a film (because the acting, pacing and story pull you in, engrossing you from start to finish), these poltholes and nitpicks become "not a big deal." You either ignore them deliberately, or they slip past you unnoticed.


Picking a movie's failings to pieces can be fun (I've done it myself with some of my favourite films ), however "I" don't feel it is the right way to try and convince anyone that a film they liked is in reality "bad."


Oh and by the way I'm the biggest, super-duper, extraordinary, fantastical, amazing, staunch, diehard, die-hard, "die hard", Trek fan of all time in the history of the known and unknown universe, all parallel and alternate realities and whatever lies beyond.


:lol


Kevin

 

[Jeyl]

For instance the idea of Khan beaming allllllll the way to Kronos had me rolling my eyes a bit. However I give the writers an A for effort for at least "trying" to explain that he used an experimental device with Scotty's transwarp beaming formula.

Which they get an F later on when Scotty says that Starfleet "confiscated" his transwarp equation. How do you confiscate an equation? This whole equation was not only Scotty's creation, he actually figured out what he was doing wrong in the last movie that prevented him from getting it to work. And as the last movie demonstrated, he was able to implement this equation into the Enterprise's transporters that enabled him to transport Kirk and Spock over to the Narada. Even if Starfleet did remove the equation from the transporters, he should be able to implement it again because he figured out the equation! This goes beyond breaking rules used in Star Trek, this is the writers breaking their own rules.

 

[Adenides]

Greetings,

I concur with most if not all of your points....in just about every post you've made in this thread.

-Peace-

 

[NakedMoleRat]

What is that smell? Musty, sweaty, gymnasiumny.......SOCK PUPPET!

Greetings,

I concur with most if not all of your points....in just about every post you've made in this thread.

-Peace-

 

[Zombie_61]

...It's kinda like trying to wrap your brain around the Bond reboot with Daniel Craig and what that means for the previous stories. Were the last 50 years erased when Craig took over? Why the Aston-Martin DB5 with the machineguns, then? Does that mean that the Connery era did exist, but other aspects didn't? How do we explain that?...

It becomes easier to explain if you subscribe to the theory that "James Bond" is nothing more than a false identity that is passed down to a subsequent agent when the current "Bond" retires from field work or is killed in the line of duty.

As for Star Trek, the reboot would have made more sense if they'd simply started over with the new cast and not made any references whatsoever to previously established canonical events or characters (except perhaps for generic mention of the various "alien" races--Klingons, Romulans, Andorians, etc.) or "altering the timeline". Introduce the new actors, put 'em on the Enterprise, send 'em on their way, and come up with new stories. Done. No need to explain why things are different, it's simply a new incarnation of the original series. Every other reboot has been done that way, why not Star Trek?

 

[Adenides]

Greetings,

So if I get this straight....

I don't like STID...so I must be a "sock puppet"?
Isn't that the same as being a racist if i don't like Obama?

-Peace-

 

[Michael Bergeron]

It becomes easier to explain if you subscribe to the theory that "James Bond" is nothing more than a false identity that is passed down to a subsequent agent when the current "Bond" retires from field work or is killed in the line of duty.

No it doesn't.

Why does Lazenby remember Connery's missions? Why does Connery seek vengeance on Blofeld? Why does Moore lay flowers at Tracy's grave? Why does Dalton refer to Tracy at Felix's wedding? Why does Craig's family home have graves for his parents with the surname "Bond"?