The obligatory Star Trek Into Darkness Musings Topic

[Selezen]

Yeah, I'm a STrek fan, and enjoyed the Abrams outing 3 years ago. I am looking forward to the new film and have seen the trailer and I think the trailer puts some possibilities out there.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THIS THREAD - DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING...




I MEAN IT!!!





The secret of who the baddie is has been a big debate. Everyone thought / hopes it's Khan, but Abrams and co have said "nope, that's not it" but have said it will be some sort of homage to the original series just like the second film in the original movie outings.

However, on watching the trailer, it seems that there's another candidate for the film's villain, although Khan still hasn't been ruled out by the footage. Benedict Cumberbatch is in a Starfleet uniform in one scene, indicating he may be a Starfleet officer. OK, Khan wore the uniform in both Space Seed and TWOK, but what if he IS an officer? The appearance in the trailer of a cute blonde woman with a bob haircut and wearing a medical services tunic is interesting - her appearance looks almost IDENTICAL to Dr Elizabeth Dehner in the original series pilot Where No Man Has Gone Before, which dealt with a Starfleet officer developing psionic powers and declaring himself a god then trying to take over the Enterprise and being abandoned on a planet for his troubles.

I think it is not outwith the realm of possibility that Mr Cumberbatch could be taking on the role of Lt. Gary Mitchell. Which would be cool.

[Rese249er]

I believe Cumberbatch's character is named John Harrison. Sounds as mundane as Gary Mitchell, but obviously that's all speculation.

[DaddyHoggy]

I thought the JJ reboot as an acceptable SciFi film that was Star Trek in name only.

I see nothing in this one that tells me it will be another acceptable action based SciFi that apparently will have some characters that people who watch Star Trek will recognise and ship designs that will be familiar...

I find myself oddly "meh".

[CommRLock78]

I suppose I should see the 2009 film first before I can say much about this....it's crazy how out of touch I am with movies that I should 'hear' about it three years after was made on a bulletin board . I always liked the other movies at any rate, so I would definitely give it a fair shot.

[Selezen]

I believe Cumberbatch's character is named John Harrison. Sounds as mundane as Gary Mitchell, but obviously that's all speculation.

Sounds very similar to John Harriman - the very bad captain of the Enterprise-B (and the man who got Kirk killed). God, I hope not. Mind you, it might be at least a chance for the character to get a decent role...

I thought the JJ reboot as an acceptable SciFi film that was Star Trek in name only.

Lots of people think that, and although I respect your opinion, I struggle to agree with it. The name of Star Trek had been dragged through the mud completely by Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis and the franchise was all but dead, killed by bad writing, bad directing and Rick Berman being an ass of the highest order. Abrams has achieved something practically unique, in that he has preserved everything of the original Star Trek by shelving that entire universe in its own little protective bubble and bringing a MUCH-needed originality to the series. the 2009 film takes much of its inspiration from the writings of novelists regarded as the kings and queens of Trek writing by the fandom (Prime Directive, Enterprise: The First Mission etc). If it had been more of the same tot that has been trolled out before then fans would have said "oh no, not this tired old crap again". Kobayashi Maru!

I suppose I should see the 2009 film first before I can say much about this....it's crazy how out of touch I am with movies that I should 'hear' about it three years after was made on a bulletin board . I always liked the other movies at any rate, so I would definitely give it a fair shot.

See it. It's good. But take DH's advice and see it without expecting it to be the Trek you have known and loved but a new take on it that you will see familiar things in and love just as much.

[DaddyHoggy]

Hi Selezen,

you're right inasmuch as the writing of more recent ST stuff had been terrible to the point where I was actually relieved that Enterprise got canned. Nemesis was a truly terrible film - not even better than a 2-parter TV episode - so you're right - ST had painted itself into a corner - and while I like the characterisations of the younger familiar crew I found the whole film massively full of plot holes and (potential spoilers) - the whole Vulcan thing completely (unnecessarily) OTT.

I will of course go to see the new film, but with the same fear and trepidation that I go to see the 1st part of The Hobbit next week...

[CommRLock78]

This video popped up on YouTube - thought it was highly appropriate for this thread
Honest Trailer - 2009 Star Trek movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc

Edit: I should add - after seeing this I kinda wonder if I want to bother seeing it now

[drew]

I saw it on Friday - a fun romp, but it's not Star Trek.

Cheers,

Drew.

[Selezen]

Saw this on Saturday, in 3D no less. One word summary:

AWESOME.

I have to differ with Drew here (again). I think this film has brought the new franchise closer to original Trek, especially if the differences between the two universes are clarified. The big difference is that the new Starfleet is much more militarised, which takes it away from Roddenberry's vision of a "utopian" society. He would have hated it, but then he hated everything to do with Trek that he didn't produce.

There is justification, though, at least from an in-universe perspective. From what's been seen so far in the first movie, Starfleet was more technologically advanced than the universe of TOS, obviously a possible point of divergence between TOS Prime and the Abramsverse. The arrival of the Narada, a hugely advanced ship which destroyed the Kelvin before being crippled, prompted Starfleet to take a more urgent advancement of their military equipment.

The Enterprise was launched 25 years later, then the Narada destroyed one of the core Federation worlds and threatened Earth, which prompted a huge move towards militarising Starfleet. That's seen in the highly militarised uniforms in the new film, none of which were seen in the first film.

So the setting is quite different, but the characters are very very similar. Chris Pine played it out of the park in the new film. He managed a fantastic portrayal of Kirk, from the Kirk Smirk to the playboy attitude and the "by the gut" instincts that made Kirk such a good captain - seeing the events that (in this universe) calm him down and temper his attitude is a great thing.

Quinto's portrayal of Spock is again the standout performance. It gives great insight into the character as portrayed in both series too, but in this universe Spock is more in touch with his human side, with some of that being a consequence of losing his homeworld and maybe as a side-effect of knowing his other-universe counterpart. The relationship with Uhura is an interesting sidebar and a big difference, but seems to be getting handled well. The fact that the relationship is allowed is either a tip of the hat to the VERY informal bridge that early starfleet seemed to have (holding hands, flirting, blah blah) or a nod to Kirk's try-it-and-see-how-it-goes attitude that's lampshaded in the film.

Uhura's role is good here too, especially when dealing with the Klingons. She gets a chance to shine here in a way that Nichelle Nichols dreamed about in the early days. Not only a linguistics expert but a cultural and behavioural expert too - just as a real communications officer would need to be!

Scotty is the other stand-out character here - Pegg's portrayal is energetic and brilliant, mirroring Scotty's "comedy" acts in the original series. Kind-of teaming him up with Chekov is an interesting sideways nod to Chekov's place as the comedy relief in many episodes. If it wasn't Chekov cracking the jokes it was Scotty.

Sulu and Chekov didn't have much to do, really. Chekov ran around trying to fix stuff in Scotty's absence and that was about it. Sulu got his first bite of command and that was about it.

Cumberbatch. Oh. My. God. If I was that way inclined I would. Seriously. He played a blinder. Just the right mix of anger, serenity and borderline psychopathy to bring a really interesting bad guy to life and make him just that little bit larger than life, as it should be.

The plot, though, wasn't just action packed, it was EVENT packed - which is something most reviews seem to miss out with films like this. Interesting and enlightening set-pieces all over the places as well as a "re-engineering" of some classic scenes that were instantly recognisable but changed enough to be engaging and unique. I though the plot ROCKED. I'm not doing spoilers, but Trek fans will either be impressed or vengeful about the plot elements.

Yes, there were faults. Some really bad ones, like "if the artifical gravity is failing, then why is it changing the orientation of the ship's gravity instead of just 'switching off'", and "if the Earth has been 'militarised' then how can the Enterprise and the other ship get into the atmosphere without ANY challenge at all"??? I also have issue with trying to tie so many elements of Trek lore into a 2 hour film - mentioning the ultra-secret Section 31 in the film was just unnecessary, for example.

I liked it. A lot. I loved it, in fact, and would pay to go and see it again (which for me is high praise indeed).

[Cody]

How many Tribbles would it take to fill your house?

[Selezen]

One. Always one. Little buggers eat everything.

[drew]

Interesting analysis, Selezen. Bravo.

I enjoyed it, but Cumberpatch? For me... meh. He wasn't psycho enough. There needed to be a ceti-eel moment to cement that IMHO.

Silly plot holes. Ye gods. Where was the editor/reviewer? Hiding a top secret ship in the Federation's home system? Yeah, right. They didn't need Cumberpatch's blood, they could have used any of the other 31 'crew' - thus the ending became meaningless. Ships crashing into the home planet...you are kidding, right? Where are the automated defence systems? It's the centre of the Federation! There is no way that they would let an uncontrolled starship crash in a populated area. They had plenty of notice that two ships were in trouble in orbit. Was the entire planet asleep? Madness and totally unbelievable.

Is it an unwritten rule that federation starships have to *always* crash in San Francisco? The gravity stuff you mentioned. I really, really didn't like the silly word for word swap over dialogue from Wrath of Khan. There's nods to the fans and there's blatant overplaying your hand. I cringed. Jar, jar, jar.

Both ships were in orbit... switch of the engines and... they'll stay in orbit. They wouldn't plummet like a brick. <Shakes head in bewilderment>.

And why always hanging around the Earth? With a billion other places to go why do we always have the finale on the Earth? What happened to 'Boldly going where no man/one has gone before' ? It's like Dr. Who's obsession with Earth's recent past. It's lazy writing.

Spock was excellent, agreed. Kirk is ok, but they're missing the essential core of trek which was the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and Bones. Uhura having a relationship with Spock is annoying too. McCoy had too little time on screen given he plays that character so well. Chekov and Sulu - hardly noticed them. Scotty's scene when he resigns wasn't believable, no way he'd abandon his 'beloved bairnes'.

That sounds negative. It was fun and I was entertained. It just wasn't 'trek' for me. A fun (silly) sci-fi romp, but not trek.

Cheers,

Drew.

[Selezen]

NOTE: THIS CONTAINS BIG SPOILERS

Mind you, Drew's post did too, so if you've got this far you're probably spoiled already.

I really, really didn't like the silly word for word swap over dialogue from Wrath of Khan. There's nods to the fans and there's blatant overplaying your hand. I cringed. Jar, jar, jar.

Actually, I thought that bit was VERY well done, and the acting pulled that scene off amazingly well. My ONE complaint, which ties into something you say later, was that UHURA of all people turns up in the critical scene - that was the only thing that jarred me about it - IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BONES!!!

Given that it's a parallel universe and the core of the characters is still the same, it fits well that the dialogue would be similar, and given that Spock and Kirk both share the same drive to keep the ship and its crew safe, the dialogue works just as well that way round

Both ships were in orbit... switch of the engines and... they'll stay in orbit. They wouldn't plummet like a brick. <Shakes head in bewilderment>.

I know. It's bad writing. They are going great guns on the action scenes but not too great on the science. The question is: does that make it more Trek-like or less??

And why always hanging around the Earth? With a billion other places to go why do we always have the finale on the Earth? What happened to 'Boldly going where no man/one has gone before' ? It's like Dr. Who's obsession with Earth's recent past. It's lazy writing.

It is, but it's partially dealt with in the script as filmed - the five year missions and the exploration directive of Starfleet have stalled. Enterprise was launched ten years or so later than it was in the "prime" universe, and the Federation hasn't progressed as quickly, partly because of the Nero incident and partly because of the more "militaristic" stance that Starfleet seems to have in this universe. The dialogue in the film specifically states that Kirk is expecting to be given the Enterprise to go out on the first five year mission.

Spock was excellent, agreed. Kirk is ok, but they're missing the essential core of trek which was the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and Bones. Uhura having a relationship with Spock is annoying too. McCoy had too little time on screen given he plays that character so well. Chekov and Sulu - hardly noticed them. Scotty's scene when he resigns wasn't believable, no way he'd abandon his 'beloved bairnes'.

Completely agree with the "triumvirate" being crippled. Uhura seems to have taken on the "third person" role, and McCoy has been pushed out. No matter what the plot states, and no matter my happiness at Uhura finally getting a bigger part in a plot, the threesome that went on the mining ship should have been Kirk-Bones-Spock. In fact, the plot should have been written specifically to allow that, rather than being some half-baked attempt to get Klingons on screen again (I mean really? What plot relevance did they have? Harrison could have transwarp beamed anywhere!!). Uhura's linguistic talents could have been utilised from the ship.

Scotty's resignation I am generally OK with. Or am I? He's only been with Kirk and the Enterprise for less than a year by this film, and hasn't yet fully fell in love with her. I think there was a bigger lead time into the original series for Scotty (already part of the furniture by that time). I do think the original Scotty would have fought harder to prevent the dangerous items being loaded on board before the ultimatum that eventually put his back against the wall. He would have rather been fired first, and the dialogue would have been more like:

KIRK: "Scotty, if you don't back down and let this happen, you'll leave me no choice but to relieve you of duty."
SCOTT: <aghast> "Ye'd really do that, sir?"
KIRK: <regretting every word> "If you leave me no choice, yes. I have my orders and you have yours."
SCOTTY: <shaking his head, looking betrayed> "Then I'll save ye the trouble, Captain. I resign."

[Cmdr Darkstar]

And why always hanging around the Earth? With a billion other places to go why do we always have the finale on the Earth? What happened to 'Boldly going where no man/one has gone before' ? It's like Dr. Who's obsession with Earth's recent past. It's lazy writing.

Just got back from watching it.

When did they even get back to Earth?

They were out near the Klingon homeworld, then had the warp-chase and the warp-speed shootout, leaving them crippled in some deep-space junk-yard, and then... suddenly they're in falling out of Earth orbit. When they first mentioned Earth, I assumed I must have misheard, because I couldn't see how they were supposed to have got there so soon.


Edited to add:
Did anyone else think some of the ships flying about the streets of London looked awfully like a Freelancer Bretonian ship? (An intermediate between the Cavalier and Crusader)?
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n28/ ... valier.png
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n28/ ... usader.png

[Selezen]

It's called a "gaping plot hole".

The Vengeance just "happened" to get the Enterprise to break out of warp over Earth. Completely plausible.

Even I can't be bothered trying to justify this one.