Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

So kicking the engine is also symbolic: it is not only the last act of a man desperate to save his crew, it is Kirk "kicking" at all the mistakes he has made not only as Captain of the Enterprise, but essentially everything he has done wrong since he was born.

And what mistakes has Kirk made? I mean, the last film depicted Kirk's decision to kill a defenseless enemy who was already in mortal danger to be the biggest heroic deed of the movie that everyone not only cheered him for, but also rewarded him with the rank of Captain and the best ship in the fleet. Yet when he's tasked to do the same thing in this movie, that's all of a sudden the wrong thing to do because they need to bring this guy in to stand for what he's done.....

Maybe if STID dwelled on the last movie's depiction of our heroes choosing to kill Nero and his whole crew, STID might have had something to go on. Sure, Nero didn't want to be rescued, but was Kirk's decision to be the ones to openly kill him the right thing to do? They could have used Kirk's actions in the last movie to actually justify Kirk's quick promotion in a more realistic way. Have Admiral Marcus be the one who pushed for Kirk's promotion to be Captain because if the opportunity was to ever come again, he could rely on Kirk to do the things that any ordinary Starfleet officer would deem unethical and unjust.
 
have not seen the movie is this one worth buying or just a rental quality film. Liked the 1st one, just curious any opinions on buy or rent welcome and thank you in advance :)
 
If you liked the 2009 film enought to own it, I would say that you would like this one as well.

I'm going to buy my copy Tuesday. I liked it more than the first JJ film. :)


Kevin
 
I think that there is some relevance to meteorites in ST:ID, iirc didn't Kirk & Khan have to dodge meteorites when they did their space dive to the Vengeance? Still, I'm with Jeyle on this one, relevant or not a meteorite is a lame extra to include, esp. if it's a contest exclusive.


As for Kirk vs. Spock's fixing of the warp drive, I liked the way Kirk did it better. Sure, it could have been better but at least we see Kirk do something that at least makes some sense versus Spock just waving his hands around in an energy stream. As much as I love TWOK I never thought that the Spock fixing the warp drive scene was very good, the room he was in was awful small with just a pedastal and a geodesic globe on top and to fix it all he did was wage his hands around in the energy stream. Now granted that the new Enterprise's warp core/reactornroom was the other extreme and way too large it at least more complex and Kirk did more to fix than just waving his hands around in an energy stream, it may not have been the best way to have had him fixing things but at least it makes some sort of sense and it also has a certain amount of symbolic value as pointed out previously.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
it also has a certain amount of symbolic value as pointed out previously.

The warp drive being "off kilter" could also represent Kirk's path being off kilter- as he kicks it back into place, he is putting his life back "on the right track", even if it is the last thing he does before he dies.



Kevin
 
The thing Spock fixes does seem kinda silly...like who would engineer something like that? All the radiation vents out directly into your face? Really?
 
I think clactonite nailed it on the head in his first post. He tried to get past the plot holes but couldn't. EVERY film can be nitpicked to death, the trick is to make it entertaining enough for the viewer to be able to look past those holes or even not notice them. If the film is good enough people will even rise up to the defence of those plot holes and make up reasons why they aren't actual issues with the film.

Fact is for some that this movie wasn't good enough to overcome those issues. I ride the line but tend to fall on that side of it. It doesn't offend me or make me mad, it certainly wasn't a bad film, it was just... Alright. The plot holes aren't the problem.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to defend the fact that Han shot the TIE fighter to the side of Vader because he knew that the Advanced TIE had shields and his shot would be ineffective meaning he DID deserve his medal at the end of Star Wars! :lol
 
The warp drive being "off kilter" could also represent Kirk's path being off kilter- as he kicks it back into place, he is putting his life back "on the right track", even if it is the last thing he does before he dies.



Kevin

Just wanted to say that I appreciated the symbolic take on Kirk's journey in the command role. I actually think that fits well with the way that this film was, in a sense, a continuation of the main characters' evolutions from the first film. Kirk and Spock's friendship deepening, Spock becoming more comfortable with the dualism in his own nature, Kirk finally (mostly) EARNING his command rather than just lucking into it, and the other members of the crew becoming more integrated as a team. I only wish they'd use Bones more.

In away, much like the new BSG, I find this take on Trek to be more about the emotional journeys of the characters than about the plot itself. That can be both good and bad. It makes the characters somewhat richer, if perhaps more overwrought, but it also can be a burden in that the plot is given short shrift at times in service to the character arcs. So, you end up with a scene like the reactor room, which looks kinda goofy in a sense, but does a nice job of getting Kirk to where he needs to be to REALLY command.

I think clactonite nailed it on the head in his first post. He tried to get past the plot holes but couldn't. EVERY film can be nitpicked to death, the trick is to make it entertaining enough for the viewer to be able to look past those holes or even not notice them. If the film is good enough people will even rise up to the defence of those plot holes and make up reasons why they aren't actual issues with the film.

Fact is for some that this movie wasn't good enough to overcome those issues. I ride the line but tend to fall on that side of it. It doesn't offend me or make me mad, it certainly wasn't a bad film, it was just... Alright. The plot holes aren't the problem.

I hear ya. I enjoyed this film more than the first, but as entertaining as those films are, they still don't quite grab me the way the older stuff did. It's not bad, it just feels different. But it also feels a bit more...I dunno...generic. It really wasn't until the last, oh, third of the film that I really started to feel like the JJ series was actually finally accomplishing what it set out to do originally: taking elements of the original and telling a truly new take on it that still had a unique feel. Prior to that, it felt like a Star Trek skin wrapped around the same kind of modern adventure story we see nowadays.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to defend the fact that Han shot the TIE fighter to the side of Vader because he knew that the Advanced TIE had shields and his shot would be ineffective meaning he DID deserve his medal at the end of Star Wars! :lol

Whoa. That is a level of scrutiny I never even could've imagined. :lol
 
I think that there is some relevance to meteorites in ST:ID, iirc didn't Kirk & Khan have to dodge meteorites when they did their space dive to the Vengeance?

That was torn up debris from the Enterprise's hull after it was attacked by the Vengeance.
 
The thing Spock fixes does seem kinda silly...like who would engineer something like that? All the radiation vents out directly into your face? Really?

I think the bigger question is why they don't have effective anti-radiation suits on the Enterprise... which (since it operates in outer space) would encounter... radiation. :lol

(I think I'll add this nitpick to my WOK sucks thread ;) ).


Kevin
 
That was torn up debris from the Enterprise's hull after it was attacked by the Vengeance.

You're right, I realized that shortly after I posted my comment. I was thinking to myself, wasn't that debris they were dodging? I guess they should have made it the Special Debris Edition then that comes with bits of hull debris.
 
You're right, I realized that shortly after I posted my comment. I was thinking to myself, wasn't that debris they were dodging? I guess they should have made it the Special Debris Edition then that comes with bits of hull debris.

Thinking back, that was A LOT of debris just from one ship. Just a nitpick.
 
Well, since we're still nit picking this beast....Spock's ear tips are pointed too forward, when they should be in a more nuetral upswept point. They seem to be really sticking out towards the front more than they should.
 
...Now if you'll excuse me I have to defend the fact that Han shot the TIE fighter to the side of Vader because he knew that the Advanced TIE had shields and his shot would be ineffective meaning he DID deserve his medal at the end of Star Wars! :lol
Or you could simply say they gave him the medal because his actions deflected Vader's attack and, ultimately, assisted Luke in completing the mission. ;)

Well, since we're still nit picking this beast....Spock's ear tips are pointed too forward, when they should be in a more nuetral upswept point. They seem to be really sticking out towards the front more than they should.
The prosthetic ear tips Nimoy wore in the original series pointed slightly forward as well, and Nimoy has stated he liked those the most out of all of the various ear tips he's worn playing Spock. Maybe they're making Quinto's ear tips point forward as a way of honoring Nimoy's tenure as Spock?
 
Michael, you are spot on about getting past the plot points. In the first scene I wondered why the ship was underwater and why Spock was so concerned with the prime directive whilst violating it himself. After that I had that mindset of "why". Having said that, as a 14 year old watching WOK at the cinema I did wonder how the genesis planet appeared after the torpedo was detonated on the reliant in a nebula. Never the less it remains one of my favourite films. Maybe it was because this perceived inconsistency was at the end of the film (WOK) rather than at the beginning (ID).
 
I did wonder how the genesis planet appeared after the torpedo was detonated on the reliant in a nebula.

That's actually science there. Based on the theory of planetary coalescence. Protostars gather a matter cloud in the shape of a disk and gravity attracts smaller clumps to larger clumps which, in turn, makes those clumps larger and, therefore, more attractive to more clumps of matter. Eventually enough matter clumps together to create a proto-planet which attracts more matter and becomes a full blown planet.

Since the Genesis Torp's primary goal was to create life where there was none and the Genesis Cave was just an early test that worked out perfectly it is logical that part of the torpedo's design was to stimulate matter gathering to create a planet and then jump start the biofields that lead to life forms. The flaw in the calculations was there was no "slowing code" to stop the accelerated process at some point during it's lifespan so the planet formed, grew life, evolved it quickly while aging and evolving quickly itself and then the planet destroyed itself just as quickly allowing the matter in the Mutara Nebula to return to it's normal dispersion.
 
Back
Top