NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
I don't think I'd want pictures of STD Klingons!
Not a typo.....:lol
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Not a typo.....:lol
Jedi2016
Sr Member
I just find it somewhat amusing that people continue to treat these films as if they're sequels or have some religious continuity to the films that came before. They are what they are, and I can enjoy them for what they are, and I don't need them to be more or different than they are. They don't ruin the older films for me, and I don't feel any of the utter hatred that so many here do. I feel like I'm in the extreme minority around this place sometimes, and not just with this film, but for pretty much everything that's come out the last few years that I've enjoyed for what it is and not for what a bunch of people on the internet wanted it to be.
Solo4114
Master Member
That's about where I come out on this stuff. I've gotten to a point where I just treat stuff like this as being in an entirely different continuity. I don't give a damn what the producers or the wiki say. I decide what is and isn't canon.
That said, I can understand the sadness or frustration that some might have if a particular beloved franchise goes in a direction that they simply cannot enjoy. I dealt with that with the Star Wars films and 15 years of prequel-oriented stuff. You learn to compartmentalize, but I can understand how, if you really love a franchise (or band, or show, or novel series, etc.), there's a sense of betrayal when the franchise moves on from you. Hardcore geeks don't just get tired of a franchise; they get divorced.
But, I've also found that, as I've gotten older and experienced this a few times, (a) it has less and less of an effect on me, (b) I'm better able to compartmentalize my universes (e.g., Newt, Ripley, Hicks, and Jonesy are all alive and well, thankyouverymuch), and, perhaps unfortunately (c) I'm less likely to get SO invested in a particular fandom that it'll break my heart if the franchise moves in a direction I don't like much.
You'd get a lot better use of your time if you don't even bother. There's no money in it.
jlee562 said:
And accomplishes what exactly? Kirk earning the Captain's chair? Spock learning to deal with his dual sided nature? The two of them becoming friends? Since all those points were covered in the last movie, I don't see how this film did anything different. It's like the writers are trying to convey the idea that all you ever really need in a Star Trek story is about how Kirk and Spock are good friends. I think we get it already.
Solo4114
Master Member
I saw it less as a rehashing, and more as continuing and deepening the exploration of those themes. Ok, so they're good friends. But what's that actually mean? Ok, so Kirk's got the command chair, but he's still pretty green and is still learning to manage responsibility. He and Spock are still working out an effective balance to their personalities and their command styles, and that's going to be rather essential if and when they finally do get on with their five-year mission to explore strange new worlds and the rest. I mean, I don't know about you, but my relationships with my closest friends do change over time, and we still learn about each other even years after having met and first become friends. People I've been friends with for over a decade and I still sometimes have to work through our different communication styles, approaches to problem solving, etc. Set that against the backdrop of some kewl action and spectacle, and you've got yourself a better than average popcorn flick.
And hey, the score improved! Bonus!
Yeah, in the '09 film the Kirk/Spock friendship only starts to manifest itself towards the end if the film, and then it's based more on mutual respect then true friendship. Into Darkness begins with them having clearly developed a strong emotional bond which deepens during the film as their friendship is tested. I loved the scenes with the two if them interacting with each other.
But this isn't a friendship between two people who have known each other for years. In fact, the film establishes that Kirk and Spock have only known each other for less than a year. I don't have a problem with Kirk and Spock working out their problems and becoming better friends, but I do have a problem with Spock getting more upset over Kirk's death than the combination of the murder of his own mother, the destruction of his home world and the billions of Vulcans that died there. No way.
Solo4114
Master Member
As did I. And actually, throughout the film, in spite of the rather ham-fisted references to prior films, I found THAT thread to be really enjoyable -- and also to be a really clear reminder that this universe has basically nothing to do with the prior universe (continuity declarations notwithstanding). The story is all new. The relationships are all yet to be mapped out. We see Kirk and Spock together, and it's natural to assume "Well, of course they'll be friends." But that's based on material that's existed for at least 30 years, and more in many cases. The Kirk and Spock of the "main" timeline are not the Kirk and Spock we see today. So, seeing how their friendship and command relationship will evolve is still novel (to me, anyway) in this universe. More to the point, it reminds me that this is really "Trek, but not Trek." It's a separate entity unto itself that doesn't really rely on what came before.
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?
Answer: WE DON'T. We ignore it. We say "Ok, that's Old Bond, and this is New Bond." And we stop trying to make the whole universe make sense. The series was rebooted. The Bond we see today isn't the Bond from then, even though Judi Dench was M in both "timelines" if you will. Two different universes, both of which still exist for your viewing enjoyment. The only thing that's changed is the stylistic direction of the series. Many people lament the move away from the more "movie-like" Bond of the old franchise, and towards a more "literary" version of the character. I have no problems with that, myself, but I get the frustration because the old version is unlikely to come back, at least in the same capacity. But the old stuff still exists and hasn't been mucked with, so enjoy the Connery years as you will!
Solo4114
Master Member
Well, that's my bloody point, isn't it? We DON'T have established relationships, so we AREN'T rehashing old ground as you said originally. Come on man, try to at least follow your OWN arguments. If you found Spock's portrayal to be incongruous with his previous portrayal, that's one thing. You were complaining that we'd seen this all already. My point was, no, we hadn't, really. Now you're shifting gears and saying it's ok that we saw their friendship develop (in spite of prior comments), and instead the problem is that Spock's behavior is inconsistent with his prior behavior.
Look. If you don't like the movie, fine and dandy. If you want to list reasons why you don't like the movie, fine and dandy. But keep your discussions consistent, at least, or just say "**** it. I don't like the movie," and move on already.
Except the part where Kirk believes that Spock has no emotions but later learns that he does. I believe that element was covered in the last film.
Yet Star Trek Into Darkness proves otherwise with that scene where NuSpock contacts Spock Prime about who Khan is, what their history was with him, and how they ended up defeating him at great cost. You can't say a movie isn't relying on the older material when they have the original character played by the original actor giving a perfect short version of events that did come before it.
seelsa73
Sr Member
:thumbsup Great response.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
Jeyl,
I will make sure that you are buried in your Starfleet uniform after a eulogy by "Fleet Admiral" T'prell, and I'll be sure that your stuffed Tholian plush will be tucked under your arm!
I will make sure that you are buried in your Starfleet uniform after a eulogy by "Fleet Admiral" T'prell, and I'll be sure that your stuffed Tholian plush will be tucked under your arm!
If you can't debate, equivocate! Jeyl makes obfuscating an art form.
Uninte-, wait a minute. Solo said that this new take of Star Trek is, and I quote, "a separate entity unto itself that doesn't really rely on what came before."
I disagree. If STID is indeed it's own thing that doesn't need to rely on previous Star Trek material, why do we have a scene that's so blatantly telling us otherwise? If it wants to be it's own thing, it should let our heroes deal with the situation themselves rather than ask the original Spock how they did it in their reality. I don't see how making that a point means I'm being "obscure, unclear, or unintelligible".
jlee562
Sr Member
They capture Khan and end Marcus' conspiracy to push for war with the Klingons. What, did you miss the last part of the movie?
Also, far be it for me to speak for Solo, and he can correct me if I'm wrong. But I interpreted his point as meaning that new fans don't have to be familiar with the old canon in order for the films to work.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
I'm going to try to explain this, since you don't seem to have understood it based on anything anyone else has suggested, written, or otherwise implied. I'm not sure if this is because you're genuinely a troll (which I don't actually think), if you're missing social cues in the written word, or if this is just...how you are. But I'll try to explain nonetheless.
The problem I have with engaging in these discussions/debates with you is that, at the core, it seems like you really just want to argue for the sake of arguing. You don't maintain a clear line of argument, shifting from point to point without acknowledging that you've been proven wrong, conceding that the other person is right (not the same thing), or even grudgingly admitting that they have a valid point, or whatever; you just shift tracks and start arguing about something else. You pick out individual phrases or sentences from a longer post and argue against those, without regard to the context in which they were said, particularly when, in context, the statement basically refuted what you were talking about in the post to which the statement responded. When a particular line of discussion appears exhausted, you find another line from the post and start arguing against THAT, whether it was the central thesis or argument from the previous post itself.
Now, while it's true that internet discussions frequently range across a variety of subjects, the tone of your posts and style of your writing comes across as more adversarial, thus, argumentative. Therefore, rather than seeming like a natural evolution of a friendly discussion, it simply seems like you're being evasive and perpetuating an argument where one need not exist.
To put this into more concrete terms, consider the following example. Earlier today, you posted about how the friendship themes explored in ST09 were rehashed in STID. I responded to this by explaining how, in my view, they were less a rehash and more a further exploration thereof, citing to the example of how even in my long term friendships, I've found that the friendship can evolve over time and that my friends and I can gain better understanding of each other; the implication being -- from context, I might add -- that, because this is still very early in the Kirk/Spock relationship, so it's legitimate for a further film to explore and expand upon the beginnings of that friendship.
You responded to this by taking the sentence I wrote about my own friendships over many years, and saying that Kirk and Spock hadn't been friends that long -- which was my point, actually -- and then stated that, apparently in spite of your prior complaints about how the friendship was rehashed, it was really just that you didn't like how Spock behaved in response to that friendship when placed in contrast to his emotional response to the destruction of his homeworld and death of his mother before his eyes. Then you further picked apart my post in a few separate posts, to start, apparently, new arguments about the statements in those.
Do you understand that your behavior in these discussions comes across as basically being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Do you begin to see why people might find this...irritating and tedious? Do you see where seizing on individual phrases out of context, changing topics mid-stream, contradicting yourself, and all while simultaneously refusing to even begin to acknowledge that the other person may have a point might make you kind of a pain in the ass to deal with? All of that behavior I described above comes across as being argumentative for the sake of having an argument, or really just for the sake of being contradictory.
Look, I don't know if you do this on purpose to irritate folks because you get your jollies that way. I'm inclined to think you don't. Actually, I'm inclined to think you may not even realize the impact that your writing style and argumentation style has on how you're perceived. That's why I'm bothering to write all this out. Before you respond to it -- if you're going to respond at all -- stop and think about it. You seem like a decent guy whose internet etiquette may simply be getting the better of him. But there's a reason why people across multiple threads respond to you in an antagonistic way: they're giving back what they perceive you to be offering to them.
No, I'm just trying to figure out why a story where the only thing that happens is getting everything back to the way it was matters in the grand scheme of things. Unless the next movie makes some very big point about Khan or Pike's death, Star Trek Into Darkness feels like a completely skippable story. You could say that in the end of Trek09 that they were beginning their five-year mission into deep space, and they just happen to have Carol Marcus onboard as a new crew member. That is of course depending on if they bring her back. If they don't bring her back (and really, who's asking for that?), that makes skipping STID all the easier.
When dealing with sequels, I agree that films should try to be their own thing, and the Wrath of Khan certainly works even if you haven't seen Space Seed. Here's the difference though when it comes to Solo's argument. The Wrath of Khan wasn't trying to act as a different entity from TOS where everything that came before it didn't matter. The Wrath of Khan is a true, bona fide follow up to Space Seed and even acknowledges itself as such. And that's exactly how Trek09 portrayed itself as a true continuation of the Star Trek storyline. Trek09 is what happens after Nemesis. So how exactly is the argument that STID is a completely separate entity that doesn't reply on what came before it's direction is no different than the previous follow ups that came before it?
Similar threads
