Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
:thumbsup Autocorrect.
As for why Starfleet would want to have a transporter like that classified it's simple. The whole crew beams to safety and then the transporter falls into enemy hands. Said transporter is then used to beam an army to any given planet.
Agreed and that whole post was eloquently put :thumbsup.
Orci's comments are still off putting though, it reminds me of other artists (whether it's a writer or director) who chooses to retaliate critics and criticism in general through the notion that, if you choose to criticize then you should do that creative job yourself.
Zombie_61
Master Member
I understand your point, but they could have been equally different by creating new stories. Instead, they wrote in a plot device that eradicates the original timeline so that they wouldn't be held to duplicating it, then they proceeded to pick and choose elements from the original series and movies featuring the original series cast and include them in their "new" timeline. It's lazy, and it shows they didn't have the confidence to use that clean slate they created for themselves.
That said, for the record I found the two movies neither brilliant nor aggravating. I enjoyed them for what they were, but feel they could have been better if those responsible would have had the guts to make them truly separate from the original series.
Orci gets it.
As I have said before when I was doing Trek cons in the 90's there were some real knock down drag outs of why some Fans Trek was better than others and I would always use the IDIC philosphy.
One time I was refereeing in My TOS Battlesar Galactica Uniform which always drove some fans up the wall, "How can you wear that here"?!
Guys it's just a show! :lol
As I have said before when I was doing Trek cons in the 90's there were some real knock down drag outs of why some Fans Trek was better than others and I would always use the IDIC philosphy.
One time I was refereeing in My TOS Battlesar Galactica Uniform which always drove some fans up the wall, "How can you wear that here"?!
Guys it's just a show! :lol
seelsa73
Sr Member
*Thunderous applause* Eloquently put. 100% agree with this.
Isn't that why Starships have an auto-destruct sequence? It worked pretty well in Star Trek III: The Search For Spock when Kirk and crew abandoned ship and tricked the Klingons into believing the Enterprise was theirs. And even if you didn't have transwarp beaming and everyone on the ship dies because of it, they're still leaving the ship with a warp drive, phasers, photon torpedoes, shields, tactical information and even the bloody holodeck ripe for the taking. Sure, transwarp beaming can be used as a weapon, but one could argue that anything can be used as a weapon.
Warp Drive can be used to transport unsuspecting armies to several areas. Or better yet, why not turn Starfleet's method of interstellar travel into a bomb?
Officer: Why has the Captain ordered self-destruct sir?
Scotty: I would say lass because he thinks, he hopes that when we go up, we'll take the intruder with us.
Officer: Will we?
Scotty: When that much matter and anti-matter are brought together, oh yes. We will indeed.
Scotty: I would say lass because he thinks, he hopes that when we go up, we'll take the intruder with us.
Officer: Will we?
Scotty: When that much matter and anti-matter are brought together, oh yes. We will indeed.
The holodeck?
Picard: I disengaged the safety protocols. Without them even a holographic bullet can kill.
Chakotay: Forty-three. Most of them were killed by facsimiles of Alpha quadrant weapons. Romulan disrupters, Klingon bat'leths.
Janeway: Starfleet phasers?
Chakotay: I think we'll find they all came from the holo-technology we gave the Hirogen three years ago.
Janeway: Starfleet phasers?
Chakotay: I think we'll find they all came from the holo-technology we gave the Hirogen three years ago.
And the fiest de resistance, why not use the regular transporter as a weapon?
Picard: In the interim, stand ready to initiate transporter code fourteen* at my signal.
Riker: Transporter code fourteen?
Picard: You heard me, Number One.
*Code 14 uses the transporter to destroy whatever is in the area that the transporter is locked onto
Riker: Transporter code fourteen?
Picard: You heard me, Number One.
*Code 14 uses the transporter to destroy whatever is in the area that the transporter is locked onto
Or how about transporting a bomb onto an unsuspecting ship? It's pretty well established that nobody keeps their shields up if nothing seems wrong. And even if the target ship is using their shields, that's never always fool proof.
Paris: It was Harry's idea to beam over a photon torpedo while they were remodulating their shields.
I don't think Transwarp Beaming is the only hazardous thing that an enemy can take from a Federation Starship.
Yet I still have his attention. Otherwise why would he chime in on a discussion that I brought up?
Likely gleaning it from the other responses, I would imagine.
So if he posts a comment I disagree with, I shouldn't respond to it because... he's ignoring me. I thought this was a discussion where anyone who wanted to chime in could chime in. If I wanted a one-on-one conversation with him, I wouldn't be replying to his posts in here where everyone, including yourself can give their thoughts on the subject. He may not see my reply, but that's not why I did it.
Solo4114
Master Member
:thumbsup Autocorrect.
As for why Starfleet would want to have a transporter like that classified it's simple. The whole crew beams to safety and then the transporter falls into enemy hands. Said transporter is then used to beam an army to any given planet.
Well. That pretty much nails it, actually. I hadn't thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.
That said, I hope the trans-warp-get-out-of-jail-free device is not used again. Let's not turn that into the new "time travel!" dodge.
I'm of two minds on writers being defensive and saying "Ok, hotshot, then YOU do it better."
On the one hand, I can sympathize with the emotional "Up yours!" response, particularly if it's something you worked hard on and are proud of, and then some whiny little spotty faced git comes along and craps all over it.
On the other hand, there's a way to get across a similar sentiment that doesn't just dismiss naysayers out of hand. I mean, yeah, SOME naysayers are just negative because it's different, but often times they have a point, or may have some "tweaks at the edges" that could've improved things. As a result, backlash can seem almost like you agree with them, but refuse to concede the point, and are all the more irked because you know they're right. Like, if you're a chef, trained at Le Cordon Bleu for years, then worked under great masters of the art in some of the finest restaurants in the world, you make a meal for someone, and they say something like "Eh, it was good, but I think it could've used shallots." And DAMMIT, they're RIGHT. And you KNOW in your heart of hearts that shallots WOULD have made the dish better....but instead you say "THEN GET THE HELL OUT OF MY RESTAURANT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, *******!!"
Better to shrug and say "I'm sorry you felt it was lacking. We did the best we could, but we'll really consider what you had to say for future endeavors." Then you have to actually mean it.
Two points:
1. They can SAY they eradicated the old timeline, but I don't care. I say it's an alternate universe, and I'll pick and choose the stuff I like to acknowledge as canon.
2. I agree with the "Why'd you reboot it if you were just gonna do the same damn thing?!" argument. It's my common complaint about reboots and other branded properties. Much of the time, the brand is propping up the story, which itself is nothing spectacular. In this case, I found the story to be entertaining if derivative.
Yep.
As for the other issue of "true" fandom and such, I think it's important to pay attention to the kind of language that geeks like us use to describe the objects of our fandom. It frequently falls into religious language. "Canon," for example, and what is or isn't "canonical" in a given series. I think the reason you see such vitriol from fans who deviate from what one fan perceives as the "true faith" is that there is so much that's bound up in the show/franchise/whatever, and it is so close to both fans' hearts that they take it VERY seriously. I think there's also the perception -- and I know I've fallen prey to it in the past -- that when a franchise changes directions, it is THOSE OTHER FANS who are at fault. If ALL the fans rejected the new direction, surely the "church" would return to its former glory, no? That's where, I think, a lot of the animosity towards "unbelievers" or "heretics" comes from.
It's only after you let go of a lot of that crap and just enjoy the stuff you enjoy and ignore the rest that it gets to a point where you can actually shrug off the disappointment of unsatisfying future entries.
Trek may have moved on. Trek may never, ever be what it was before. And that's ok because you've still got the old stuff.
Riceball
Master Member
There's one problem with your argument and that none of this has happened yet and it's possible that it won't since things are different in this timeline. Many of the things that you mention might not be possible in this timeline because of the changes and deviations from the Prime Universe. Take holodecks for instance, we have no idea if they'll ever develop holodeck technology in the JJverse and, if I'm not mistaken, holodecks haven't even been developed yet in during TOS although I do seem to recall an episode of the Animated Series in where they had a holodeck malfunction.
As for self-destruct sequences, that's not a guaranteed failsafe, it could easily fail due to battle damage or shoddy workmanship on one of the circuits. Plus this is the Trek universe, it's always possible that an enemy could use a reverse polarity tachyon field from their deflector dish to deactivate the self-destruct.
If you really want to belabor this point then what about the Genesis device in TWoK? Sure it work as intended but it was shown that it could easily be used as a weapon of mass destruction instead so why didn't Starfleet adopt the Genesis torpedo instead of classifying it? Not much different from confiscating if you ask me.
I understand your overall point, I just want to clarify that one of my points did happen in Star Trek Into Darkness when Spock beamed armed torpedoes onto the Vengeance.
This is why I made the point that if the Self-Destruct didn't work, even on a ship that didn't have the Transwarp equation, the ship would still have all of it's components readily available to anyone who wanted to salvage/control it. Khan did that with the Reliant. The Ferengi did that with the Stargazer. The Tholians and later the Terrain Empire did it with the Defiant. Nero did it with the Jellyfish. And last but not least, NuKhan did it with the Vengeance. Only with the Vengeance, despite knowing that Khan is now a rogue agent, there was no fail safe system implemented into the ship's systems to prevent Khan from taking it over, even when Marcus wanted to bring him onboard as his prisoner. So they'll prevent anyone from using the Transwarp Beaming equation, but they won't make sure that their heavily weaponized ship built for destruction won't simply be taken over by anyone just giving the ship vocal commands.
There really aren't that many Starfleet instances that calls for the destruction of an entire planet. But if you're referring to using it as a means of creating inhabitable planets, STIII established (Abit rather poorly) that the Genesis device doesn't work.
Also when it came to the Genesis Device, no one took it for granted and actually made a point to have our characters discuss it. It's got great potential that could be used to help the whole galaxy by creating living worlds out of dead ones, but it could also be used on worlds where life already exists, destroying them in the process. The whole matter of "falling into the wrong hands" is a point that The Wrath of Khan even made in the Director's Edition (Thank you again Paramount for not giving us that on BluRay).
Spock: As a matter of cosmic history it has always been easier to destroy than to create.
McCoy: Not anymore. Now we can do both at the same time. According to myth the Earth was created in six days. Now watch out! Here comes Genesis. We'll do it for you in six minutes!
Spock: I do not dispute that in the wrong hands-
McCoy: In the WRONG hands? Would you mind telling me who's are the right hands my logical friend?... Are you by any chance in favor of these experiments?
Kirk: Gentlemen, gentlemen, this isn't-
Spock: Really, Doctor McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing. Logic suggests-
McCoy: Logic? My god, the man's talking about Logic. We're talking about universal armageddon!
McCoy: Not anymore. Now we can do both at the same time. According to myth the Earth was created in six days. Now watch out! Here comes Genesis. We'll do it for you in six minutes!
Spock: I do not dispute that in the wrong hands-
McCoy: In the WRONG hands? Would you mind telling me who's are the right hands my logical friend?... Are you by any chance in favor of these experiments?
Kirk: Gentlemen, gentlemen, this isn't-
Spock: Really, Doctor McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing. Logic suggests-
McCoy: Logic? My god, the man's talking about Logic. We're talking about universal armageddon!
And that's good stuff. We have this great new technological achievement that even our technologically advanced characters are in awe over and it brings up some concerns. But when it comes to discussing the dangers of Transwarp Beaming and why no one should be using it, NOTHING comes of it. It's just written off as confiscated and that's that.
Yep. I can only reply to quoted material and overall I try to avoid it. :lol
Zombie_61
Master Member
This is one mindset that I will never understand--the notion that someone must choose one specific franchise to follow faithfully. I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly/Serenity, and other franchises that aren't coming to mind at the moment, and to assign my loyalties to only one would deprive me of the pleasure I derive from the others....One time I was refereeing in My TOS Battlesar Galactica Uniform which always drove some fans up the wall, "How can you wear that here"?!
Absolutely! Especially the Star Wars v. Star Trek debate. They fill very different entertainment needs!
clactonite
New Member
I watched Into Darkness for the first time last night (missed it at the cinema) and found myself disappointed. I enjoyed the 2009 movie but this felt laboured and, at times, almost a parody. The beginning and end sequences seem very similar to Raiders of the Lost Ark, the star fleet head's meeting seemed to take elements of Dr Strangelove and The Godfather III. Then, of course, there are the elements taken from the Wrath of Khan and it's imitator Nemesis. The scenes utilising the WOK elements immediately made this (in my estimation only) a weaker film. Instead of Kirk and Khan trying to outwit each other in a battle of intellects, Into Darkness relies on running, shouting, shooting and punching. Throw in lots of lens flares and explosions and there you have it! Oh, and a bloody huge enemy spaceship (Scimitar, Narada)
The plot seems to be an attempt to join up several set pieces which set up more questions than they answer. Why is the Enterprise underwater? Would it not be easier to just remain in orbit? Why does McCoy inject a dead tribble with human blood?
As an action movie it works, the effects are stunning and the acting is very good (although the very british Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan Noonian Singh did jar) and it moves along at a fair pace but, for me, it wasn't the follow up to the 2009 movie I was hoping for.
The plot seems to be an attempt to join up several set pieces which set up more questions than they answer. Why is the Enterprise underwater? Would it not be easier to just remain in orbit? Why does McCoy inject a dead tribble with human blood?
As an action movie it works, the effects are stunning and the acting is very good (although the very british Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan Noonian Singh did jar) and it moves along at a fair pace but, for me, it wasn't the follow up to the 2009 movie I was hoping for.
Jaitea
Master Member
I agree with everything you say Clactonite, it really bugged me all those flaws, I really wanted to forget them & appreciate the film for all it's good parts (the same way I now look at Prometheus)....but very sadly I can't.
Hopefully the next one improves and they concentrate getting the story right
.......I'll stand back now while they tear you apart
J
Hopefully the next one improves and they concentrate getting the story right
.......I'll stand back now while they tear you apart
J
jlee562
Sr Member
Oh come now, we're not that bad. When people voice informed criticisms, that's fine. Though as I have argued in the past, people seem to have very selective takes on derivation.
People will eat up a Tarantino movie, and although there is an underlying body of folk who don't like Tarantino because of his many, many, many, 'homages' to different films (or in the case of Reservoir Dogs, basically a straight up rip off of City on Fire), by in large, Tarantino rides above such criticism. A New Hope lifted scenes directly from The Searchers, Triumph of the Will, and Forbidden city, in some cases, even taking the exact framing of shots. Of course, it's well known that Lucas based the space fight scenes off of WWII dogfight footage, in some cases, again replicating exact montages but replacing the planes with X-wings.
For some people, like Adam Savage, Tarantino is a genius. The end result is more than the sum of its parts. For me, I've never really thought he was all that great.
Most folks don't attack Lucas and Tarantino with the same kinds of vitriol and rhetoric which JJ received in this thread for doing what is essentially the same thing.
So if you feel that STID wasn't more than the sum of its parts, that's fine. Two reasonable people can disagree on that (that's the subjectivity of art). What becomes problematic (for me anyways) is when people just write a film off because it's supposedly being derivative, without evaluating whether or not the end result worked. For me, STID worked. While I would agree that some of the "Trek moments" were shoehorned in ("oh, we have that ship from the Mudd incident!"), and there's certainly things that I don't like (brewery, Spock/Uhura romance, did they really need the antagonist to be Khan?), on balance, I found it to be really entertaining.
And I'm still waiting on my blu-ray/phaser set.
People will eat up a Tarantino movie, and although there is an underlying body of folk who don't like Tarantino because of his many, many, many, 'homages' to different films (or in the case of Reservoir Dogs, basically a straight up rip off of City on Fire), by in large, Tarantino rides above such criticism. A New Hope lifted scenes directly from The Searchers, Triumph of the Will, and Forbidden city, in some cases, even taking the exact framing of shots. Of course, it's well known that Lucas based the space fight scenes off of WWII dogfight footage, in some cases, again replicating exact montages but replacing the planes with X-wings.
For some people, like Adam Savage, Tarantino is a genius. The end result is more than the sum of its parts. For me, I've never really thought he was all that great.
Most folks don't attack Lucas and Tarantino with the same kinds of vitriol and rhetoric which JJ received in this thread for doing what is essentially the same thing.
So if you feel that STID wasn't more than the sum of its parts, that's fine. Two reasonable people can disagree on that (that's the subjectivity of art). What becomes problematic (for me anyways) is when people just write a film off because it's supposedly being derivative, without evaluating whether or not the end result worked. For me, STID worked. While I would agree that some of the "Trek moments" were shoehorned in ("oh, we have that ship from the Mudd incident!"), and there's certainly things that I don't like (brewery, Spock/Uhura romance, did they really need the antagonist to be Khan?), on balance, I found it to be really entertaining.
And I'm still waiting on my blu-ray/phaser set.
Last edited:
Similar threads
