Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[Apollo]

:lol Thats easy come up with a better script! :lol

For non-Trekkies/trekkers, casual Trek viewers, and the general movie-going audience, there were no continuity issues for them to scoff at with the movies. They're not attempting to apologize for the movie's perceived errors with these comics, they're attempting to appease the die hards who complained.

 

[jlee562]

Why would one simply assume that the comic's sole purpose was to explain continuity issues?

Considering that many comic book adaptations have been done of feature films, and considering further that it's not out of the ordinary for there to be minor discrepancies in literary adaptations (for example, the novelization of ROTS explains the Darth Plagueus story a bit more explicitly than the film), I'm calling foul on that logic.

This is simply more projection from detractors of the film.

You really believe the ONLY possible reason they made a comic book was to explain why Khan looks different now? Not to, oh, I don't know, make a profit?

That having been said, it would have been super easy for them to simply put a line in about Khan having undergone the Arne Darvin treatment and having his appearance changed.

 

[Angelus Lupus]

look, they've cured death with "super blood", rendered Starships useless with the personal transwarp beaming thingy, and go running to Old Spock whenever they need help. There's no drama anymore.
I know I'll just get the hate again for not liking it, but guess what... I don't dislike it because it's new, or different, or because it doesn't have Shatner. If those reasons were true then I wouldn't be a TNG/DS9 fan. It's just BAD, badly written, badly made, everything. I could flog the expired equine more, but I'll just point towards Honest Trailers, Cinema Sins and How It Should Have Ended as fine critiques of this dreck.

 

[jlee562]

...none of which answers the question. Why do you assume that the comic book exists to answer continuity issues?

That's just you projecting your dislike of the film.

The fact that "honest trailers" and the like exists as ongoing series proves only that any film can be nitpicked. STID is no different in this regard.

 

[RougeAvenger81]

...none of which answers the question. Why do you assume that the comic book exists to answer continuity issues?

That's just you projecting your dislike of the film.

The fact that "honest trailers" and the like exists as ongoing series proves only that any film can be nitpicked. STID is no different in this regard.

I hate to say it bud, even though I liked the movie, the things that are being hit on are not really "nit-picking". I watched it again a week or two ago. There are a lot of plot holes and things that just don't make sense. And as stated above things like "super blood" thrown in as simple plot devices since bringing a human back from the dead seems a bit harder then a Vulcan that can mind meld himself into someone else and come back. Long and the short of it, I hate to start agreeing with a lot of the negativity some people show for the film, but a lot of the issues a pretty glaring. My wife, who has only ever seen the new star trek and is in no way a fan watched STID with me. She said she really liked it, as I did, but even her not being into the trek world asked many of the same questions I posed.

Why can't they beam spock out of a volcano yet beam across a galaxy no problem. How many times is Kirk going to get demoted and promoted in a 10 minute period. Why when kirk died didn't they just use the other guys blood that they thawed out. How does someones blood, super or not, bring someone back from the dead. She's not a fan and she even caught these "nit-pick" things. Again, I enjoyed it, but they could have simplified a lot of issues by removing Khan in general, and doing away with the copy cat scenes and plot devices like super blood.

Rant over.

 

[jlee562]

I hate to say it bud, even though I liked the movie, the things that are being hit on are not really "nit-picking". I watched it again a week or two ago. There are a lot of plot holes and things that just don't make sense. And as stated above things like "super blood" thrown in as simple plot devices since bringing a human back from the dead seems a bit harder then a Vulcan that can mind meld himself into someone else and come back. Long and the short of it, I hate to start agreeing with a lot of the negativity some people show for the film, but a lot of the issues a pretty glaring. My wife, who has only ever seen the new star trek and is in no way a fan watched STID with me. She said she really liked it, as I did, but even her not being into the trek world asked many of the same questions I posed.

Why can't they beam spock out of a volcano yet beam across a galaxy no problem. How many times is Kirk going to get demoted and promoted in a 10 minute period. Why when kirk died didn't they just use the other guys blood that they thawed out. How does someones blood, super or not, bring someone back from the dead. She's not a fan and she even caught these "nit-pick" things. Again, I enjoyed it, but they could have simplified a lot of issues by removing Khan in general, and doing away with the copy cat scenes and plot devices like super blood.

Rant over.

Oh man, this is the thread that never dies. And yes, I acknowledge my hand in it not dying.

Ok, first of all, let's take a step back. As I have said numerous times in this thread, it's totally ok to not like the movie. I'm not making judgments on anyone's level of fandom, or expertise in film criticism. At the end of the day, film, even commercial blockbusters, is art. Art is subjective. We all take different things into the movie in our heads, and our brains all process the events of the film slightly differently.

What I have been saying is that some of the arguments that some people have posted in this thread, aren't good reasons to not like the film.

Angelus Lupus saying: "If you have to publish a comic to explain details/errors in the film, then the film didn't work," is a BAD ARGUMENT for the reasons stated above. Chiefly, that it's an unfounded presumption that the comic book was published with the intent of explaining alleged errors in the plot of the film. More generally, what does releasing a comic book have to do with the writing of the film? Whether or not a comic book is released, has no bearing on the quality of any element of the film.

On the other hand, when Angelus followed up with: "look, they've cured death with "super blood", rendered Starships useless with the personal transwarp beaming thingy, and go running to Old Spock whenever they need help. There's no drama anymore." This is an argument. It's not one I necessarily agree with personally, but it's an argument which takes into account elements of the film which Angelus feels did not come together.

I'm totally into having nerdy discussions about a fictional universe, and the narrative storytelling elements. And for the most part, there's a lot of good discussion here. But sometimes, I just gotta call out the bad arguments (IMHO, obviously).

Now, as far as nitpicking, yeah, it's nitpicking. The transwarp beaming device - which I totally acknowledge is a 'lazy' plot device (as was the original transwarp beaming concept, really) - is not standard issue Federation equipment. It's a piece of covert technology from Section 31. So, no, the Enterprise can't beam Spock out of the volcano with their standard transporters. They are two separate in-universe concepts, and there's a good reason why it would be that way in-universe (the device is experimental, and covert, thus non-standard). James Bond had gadgets the British army didn't...because covert intelligence agencies develop secret technology. They don't put it into wide issue because they don't want that technology to proliferate. In Trek, we know this is true of the cloaking devices (like why the Defiant had that Romulan officer operating the cloaking device when the Defiant was introduced). So why doesn't it make sense to have the secret Section 31 retaining control of their own gadgets?

Kirk being demoted and promoted, yeah, that felt funny to me too. But in fairness, this plot element was specifically meant to address fan criticism that Kirk was promoted too quickly in the first film. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Why didn't they use the other guy's blood? Because McCoy had only tested Khan's blood. If you were McCoy, and you had one shot at a transfusion, are you going to gamble it on the assumption that every member of Khan's crew having the same super blood, or are you going to want the sure thing?

Is the super blood a little hokey? Absolutely. But it's there in the film, so we do actually have to think about the situation. The fact that it's a hokey plot device does not, in and of itself, mean that the way it's presented in film doesn't have it's own internal (in-universe) logic.

 

[Jet Beetle]

Y'know - the one thing they could have done that would have made this movie a little more forgiving in the coattails dept is have Harrison be anyone of the other 72 Superfolk OTHER than Khan. Heck, it could have provided the character with motivation wanting to revive his leader and the crew of the Enterprise doing everything they can to prevent it - knowing Khan almost took over the world once. It would have been twice cool to see Ricardo's image from Space Seed inside a cryo-tube. Not that this would have made me like the movie - but it would have kept so many stolen scenes where they belong.

 

[DuneMuadDib]

With all this discussion I'm not choosing to believe that Harrison is his real name and the Khan bit was just a false flag for some reason. I don't care enough to explain why he lied, I'm just going with the fact he did.

Though in my head canon at some point this whole alternate timeline nonsense gets reset when someone grows the spine their Prime counterparts would have and fixes the Narada's incursion. If it's a parallel universe then Prime Spock gets back home. Either way things get set right.

 

[SSgt Burton]

Kirk being demoted- as said "probably" to address fan outrage. He "should" have stayed demoted, however Marcus saw this as an opportunity to have a puppet in his masterplan and promoted Kirk back to captain.

About there being "no drama anymore" due to "highly contrived" plot devices:

There was a fantastic dramatic moment in the TOS: When Spock was rendered "blind" from the cure he had to endure in "Operation Annihilate."

Except he had that inner eyelid thingy that prevented him from having "permanent" blindness (revealed in the last five minutes of the show).


And another great dramatic moment: when Spock "killed" Kirk in Amok Time. And when told to "Live Long and Prosper" Spock replies, "I shall do neither; I've killed my Captain... and my friend." Fantastic line perfectly delivered.

Except Kirk wasn't really dead. He was just knocked out with a little help from McCoy (again revealed in the last five minutes).

Spock gets killed in WOK, reborn (and aged perfectly to look like his former self) in TSFS.

In fact the first major Trek character to "die" and actually "stay dead" was Sarek in Unification. :lol

Worf has his spine severed and undergoes a dangerous surgery... which goes horribly worng and he dies on the table. Only to have his Klingon anatomy "save his own life."


Super blood cured Kirk? So what? This is really nothing new in Trek.


Touching on "special technology": According to Star Trek VI, they figured out a way to have a cloaked ship fire its weapons (which was impossible previously). And by the end of the film this new technology was rendered useless by a science officer and a doctor reconfiguring a torpedo.
Yet this "special" torpedo configuration is never used again against cloaked ships. AND the "ship that can fire while cloaked tech" is also abandoned.

Transparent aluminum exists in the future, yet Picard shatters the "glass" of his starship display case in First Contact.

So transwarp beaming "should" render starships useless? Impossible. Either (if the writers choose to do so) the technology will be revealed as being too dangerous (because we can't just write off starships), or it will simply be forgotten just like that special torpedo or transparent aluminum.

I agree that Khan beaming to Kronos, and especially Kirk talking to Scotty through a communicator from deep space are both a stretch even in the World of Trek...

It just doesn't ruin the movie for me.


Kevin

 

[RougeAvenger81]

I'm ok with explaining this or even say that he is not really Khan. That would have been better that he wasn't anyways. However, it would have needed to be something already in the film, not an after thought in a comic that only trekkies will read. The fact is they messed up by even saying he was Khan to begin with. If they wanted to "hint" at Khan or since the story line took so many things from space seed/star trek 2, they could have left him as Harrison and explained he was trying to get the crew back because it had his leader still in hibernation. Not saying his name, but perhaps when they opened a torpedo or at the end when he is back in hibernation and the camera scrolls over the pods you see a CGI version of Khan in one of them. Very brief. Just a tip of the hat so to speak. Not trying to redo what was already great. Would have made more sense to trekkies and been a lot better then rehashing what has already been done. As good as Benedict was as an actor it's just not the same and they should have done something similar to what I described or left it alone entirely.

Y'know - the one thing they could have done that would have made this movie a little more forgiving in the coattails dept is have Harrison be anyone of the other 72 Superfolk OTHER than Khan. Heck, it could have provided the character with motivation wanting to revive his leader and the crew of the Enterprise doing everything they can to prevent it - knowing Khan almost took over the world once. It would have been twice cool to see Ricardo's image from Space Seed inside a cryo-tube. Not that this would have made me like the movie - but it would have kept so many stolen scenes where they belong.

For once JetBettle, you and I agree on something. My thoughts exactly. Does away with fan confusion/irritation for redoing Khan, and gives the story alittle better edge for telling the story in the first place rather then rebooting a story that was already done yet changing major plot points. It would have been cool just to see Ricardo in a cryotube just as a, "THAT'S AWESOME!" moment for fans rather then trying to rehash an already awesome character.

 

[RougeAvenger81]

Oh man, this is the thread that never dies. And yes, I acknowledge my hand in it not dying.

And the thread that truly never dies is the Star Wars Episode VII thread. They haven't even gotten any real details aside from the typical casting rumors and the fact that JJ is making the film and they are already on 202 pages. WOW, talk about nerding out. Haha. Hoping JJ can pull that one off too, though.

 

[Jeyl]

Kirk being demoted- as said "probably" to address fan outrage. He "should" have stayed demoted, however Marcus saw this as an opportunity to have a puppet in his masterplan and promoted Kirk back to captain.

Would have been nice if that element of the film was covered in more detail. They could have had this "masterplan" go all the way back to the previous movie to explain Kirk's sudden promotion. Maybe instead of Pike saying "I gave you my ship because I saw greatness in you", he could have said "I didn't give you my ship. It was given to you by the board. They were convinced you did enough to show you had what it takes to be a good Captain, but I wasn't convinced because I found some of your actions questionable". This kind of moment give Kirk a sense of confusion since he now learns he didn't fully earn the Enterprise to begin with since Pike, despite being content with him taking the Enterprise, still didn't think he was ready for it. When Marcus gives Kirk back the Enterprise, Kirk treats this mission to kill Khan no different than what the crew did back in the last movie. They're going to hunt down this murderer and kill him just like they did with Nero. You could have Spock be the voice of reason in that the death of Nero didn't bring him or his people any sense of peace and bringing in Nero to answer for what he and his crew did would have been the preferred course of action. Kirk would point out that Nero wouldn't surrender and Spock would counter that by pointing out that unlike Nero, Kirk isn't giving Khan a chance to surrender.

Than when Kirk is on the Vengeance threatening Marcus at gun point, Marcus could reveal to Kirk that he was the one who convinced the board to give him the Enterprise. He saw Kirk's execution of Nero as a sign that he was the kind of officer who would do what it took to bring down the enemies of Starfleet. Execution with no trial. If war with the Klingons is inevitable, they're going to need officers like Kirk who aren't bothered by rules, regulations or any form of diplomacy. When Kirk killed Nero, he was celebrated as a hero and was given command of the best ship in the fleet. Marcus says that's what Kirk will be remembered for and that's what Marcus wants Kirk to continue to do. Now what would turn Kirk away from such a course that he himself went through in the last movie? How about George, Kirk's father? When Nero attacked him, George sacrificed himself not to destroy Nero, but to save Jim, his mother and the rest of his crew. All Marcus wants is to fight an enemy where as George and Pike risked and sacrificed their lives to help others.

That's my real issue with STID's handling of Kirk's swift promotion. The writers acknowledged that it was a mistake, but they don't treat the promotion within the story itself as a mistake. They even retcon the entire reason why Pike wanted Kirk to join in the first place. "That instinct to leap without looking. That was his nature, too. And in my opinion it's something Starfleet has lost." Yet he's disciplining Kirk for doing something that falls under that category with added insult to injury of having a scene with Kirk and McCoy literally leaping off a cliff without looking! Kirk did exactly the kind of thing you wanted him to, and now he's being punished for it. If they had to punish Kirk, just punish him for the lie, not his act of violating the Prime Directive.

 

[The Mad Professor]

Touching on "special technology": According to Star Trek VI, they figured out a way to have a cloaked ship fire its weapons (which was impossible previously). And by the end of the film this new technology was rendered useless by a science officer and a doctor reconfiguring a torpedo.
Yet this "special" torpedo configuration is never used again against cloaked ships. AND the "ship that can fire while cloaked tech" is also abandoned.

First point acknowledged. Second point refuted by the abomination known as Nemesis (I know, I don't really consider it to be a Star Trek movie either).

Thing is about Star Trek is that it is chock-full of one-shot technologies and regular technologies that would be absolute game changers if not for the high-minded morality of the Federation.

Imagine the sadistic glee in Admiral Marcus' eyes if his daughter had managed to develop Genesis twenty years earlier than in the Prime universe.

Imagine how devastating Starfleet could be if it utilized transporters in a tactical sense.

Imagine how insanely effective Federation ground troops would be if the modified TR-116 (from that one episode of DS9) became a standard issue weapon.

But nooooooo... they have to be all noble and crap.

This is why the average life span of a redshirt is less than that of a Klingon dropped onto the ground level of Kashyyk.

 

[jlee562]

The Kirk demotion plot was confirmed as being included to answer fan criticism of the first film as confirmed by Bob Orci in the Mission Log interview.

 

[ghostryder]

 

[RougeAvenger81]

The alternate reality timeline, is just a plot device for JJ to manipulate the good parts of Star Trek he wants to use without fans being able to say, that's not how it happened. That is all.

 

[greatwazoo42]

Now that was funny!

 

[ghostryder]

Joe Cornish May Direct STAR TREK 3; Summer 2014 Shoot Being Eyed | Collider

 

[GvnHldn]

No disrespect to Noel Clarke at all, but am I the only one who thinks that his role would have been better cast as a woman?

I can't quite put my finger on why, but my gut tells me that that character should have been a woman.

 

[RougeAvenger81]

No disrespect to Noel Clarke at all, but am I the only one who thinks that his role would have been better cast as a woman?

I can't quite put my finger on why, but my gut tells me that that character should have been a woman.

Really? The one character that was in the movie for 2 minutes and that's the one you don't like? Ok then.