Star Trek - Into Darkness

Phazael · May 22, 2013

The other thing is that we are looking at the characters at an earlier point in their development (Wrath was post 5 year careers winding down, ID was before 5 year even began) as well as different audiences for movies. Some films can never be made again because the expectations of audiences are so different now than they once were, which is why Trek fell off the map in the first place. The average moviegoer simply has no interest in watching a two hour TNG episode and paying movie night money to do so. As a fan of all things Trek, I love the reboot and have no problem with the changes they made to broaden the appeal. The Trekkies who get all butthurt about the reboots are the same subset of fans that bitched about every sequel series when it came out, frankly.

These movies have always been Space Opera, its just that the special effects (and younger cast) now allow more human action elements to be represented on the screen. Khan hit the perfect storm of special effects that aged well combined with an amazing villain and high concepts being debated at length to keep the movie within budget limits. Nimoy was also planning on quitting, so both he and Shatner were putting a lot more into the acting than normal. The only other original cast movie to come close (Undiscovered Country) also came at a point where the actors were about to hang it up and went all out, as a result. But the circumstances that caused Khan to happen are not likely to occur again so it is unlikely we will ever have anything as good as that movie again. Comparing it to ID and complaining about a lack of dialog and high concept is unfair, because Khan had a much more limited budget and the dialog was a means to fill the gaps between special effect shots. ID had the money tree to get all the action and effects it wanted and that is reflected in the final product.

This does not make ID a bad movie in any context. Its the best paced sci-fi movie since Aliens and the cinematography is comparable to Prometheus. The cast (minus Saldana, Eve, and Weller) was top notch and played their roles spot on, without degenerating into parody. The story could have used some ironing out, to be sure. But I fail to see how anyone other than basement dwelling hipster trekkies could claim that it was not an extremely entertaining movie.

Lithose · May 22, 2013

Phazael_sl said:
Comparing it to ID and complaining about a lack of dialog and high concept is unfair, because Khan had a much more limited budget and the dialog was a means to fill the gaps between special effect shots. ID had the money tree to get all the action and effects it wanted and that is reflected in the final product.

I'm was only comparing because the original argument was the character arcs in ID were superior (Though Krueg has a point that outside of Kirk/Nimoy/Spock, everyone else could be cardboard)--and I was showing how the "high concept", or themes, in Wrath of Khan were pretty masterfully all worked in together. Age/Loss of youth, Loss, Death, Rebirth--all the elements contained these things, even the main character arc. Which was great. ID didn't, it wasn't written to that level--and it wasn't meant to be, either.

Phazael · May 22, 2013

ID had two main themes. Maturity (the whole Kirk not being ready for the chair thing) and vengeance (Khan wanting to fuck over the people who used his fellow supermen to blackmail him, Kirk wanting to avenge Pike, Spock bottling up his feelings about Vulcan until they bubbled over), which were pretty much central in all parts of the movie. Wrath had more dialog time to work with its themes, thanks to the reasons I already discussed, and thus dealt with them in a more philosophical manner. ID basically pushed the characters to the point of desperation and forced them to change if they wanted to overcome their issues (Khan never did), which is what character arcs generally end up being in action films.

There are several things to nitpick about ID, but a lack of story themes is not among them.

Jarnin_sl · May 22, 2013

Spoilering for brevities sake.

Kreugen_sl said:
All of Star Trek is science fantasy by every definition.

You mean byyourdefinition.

Kreugen_sl said:
Transporter?

Probably the most advanced and far-fetched technology in Star Trek, but not impossible. Simply implausible.

Kreugen_sl said:
Q?

Q isn't exactly a great example. He's an alien that belongs to a super advanced civilization. And like many super advanced civilizations shown in Trek, they tend to have powers and abilities that can't be explained by modern technology. So yeah, mostly fantasy, but Arthur C. Clarke made up that whole, "Suffciently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" statement for exactly this purpose.

Kreugen_sl said:
Holodecks?

Really? I mean, we have 3D virtual reality environments now. What we don't have are the cool projectors that can project light onto a force field that can give people the sensation of real objects or people, but it's plausible.

Kreugen_sl said:
Inertia cancelling _____?

Yeah, I omitted the word "magic" because it has no bearing in this case. We discovered the electron in the late 19th century, and at that time people had no idea what use it would have, if any. Now we live in a civilization that is based on electronics.

We just discovered the Higgs Boson a couple years ago. That's the particle that imparts mass to matter, and since inertia only effects matter, there MIGHT be something to inertial cancellation. It's plausible.

Kreugen_sl said:
Reverse tachyon pluses?

Not fantasy, just not really science. A tachyon is a postulated particle of light that travels faster than light and backwards through time. What you're really complaining about with this is the effect that reverse tachyon beam had, not the fact that they have reverse tachyon pulses in Trek.

But yeah, I'm not a fan of the amounts of technobabble the writers would throw out in the later years of Trek, and they used reverse tachyon pulses as a catch-all solution for a bunch of different technobabble problems. I chalk that up to bad writing and bad oversight by executive producers.

Kreugen_sl said:
ESP?

The CIA believed that ESP was a thing up until the mid 1970s. I don't think it's possible, but it's plausible depending on the mechanism used. Technological neural link? Plausible. Touching a dudes face and sharing his memories and thoughts? Probably not.

Kreugen_sl said:
Pure bullshit

Only because you've never taken the time to look into this shit. And based on your post history, I'd assume that you're a bigger fan of fantasy than science fiction (actual sci-fi, you know, the hard stuff). And that's OK! I like fantasy too, but I take the time to look this shit up because I want to know if it's plausible or not. And a lot of it is.

Kreugen_sl said:
Most of the technology on the show is only explained later in trek encyclopedias or whatever, which pretty much amount to fan fiction.

You mean like the technical manuals that were written by Trek technical consultants and producers and used by Trek writers to establish rules of how technology works in their universe? Fantasy writers typically don't do shit like this, because magic generally has little to no rules. Technology does, and the fact that the Trek producers (the technical guys who came up with most of this shit in the first place) made an effort makes this science fiction, not fantasy.

Kreugen_sl said:
They don't even casually mention things like, oh, you can't make matter out of nothing so replicators are actually rearranging raw material that they keep in a big vat on the ship somewhere. (probably raw sewage. Enjoy your shit sundae, Troi)

I don't mean to come off as condescending, but have you actually ever read any of the technical manuals? The spend a great deal of time explaining how replicators work and where they get the materials for that chocolate cake Troi likes. And it's based on real-world science.

Kreugen_sl said:
FFS, the holodeck is far more implausible than a ship that can park underwater or shoot guns while moving really fast.

A space ship is designed to keep the interior pressure from exploding the ship. A submarine is designed to keep the interior pressure from being imploded by exterior pressures. That's two opposing functions (AND a Futurama joke)! And not only that, the Enterprise doesn't have wings. It has some maneuvering thrusters and impulse engines designed for forward propulsion. Without wings, the Enterprise would fall like a fucking stone in an atmosphere.

The ONLY rational reason why the Enterprise was hiding underwater was because J.J. Abrams saw the Avengers last year, saw the Helicarrier take off and came in his pants. So he ripped that sequence off and put it in his movie.

Kreugen_sl said:
But point being, its hard to gripe about made up bullshit just because it came from JJ Abrams instead of Roddenberry or Ron Moore or the other dozens of writers. Most of the 'tech' is only explained later in encyclopedias or whatever that are basically just fan fiction. They rarely discuss how shit works on the show.

You should probably go back and rewatch the show then, because they explain how their technology works in almost every show. That is, unless it's already been established in previous episodes/series. By the time you get to DS9 or Voyager it's assumed that you already know how a Matter/Antimatter reactor works, and the holodeck, and the replicators because they explained that shit decades ago in another series.

Also, those Trek technical manuals are considered soft canon, since they were written by the technical consultants on the series for the writers on the series to use so they at least get some of the details right. The writers weren't forced to use those materials though, which is why in some episodes we had inconsistent uses of technologies.

Man, this really shows the divide between fantasy fans and science fiction fans. Fantasy fans have no problem with suspension of disbelief because it's MAGIC! Science fiction fans, on the other hand, run into problems with suspension of disbelief all the time because they are usually in a position of knowledge, or at least take the time to familiarize themselves with the things being discussed.

Dumar_sl · May 22, 2013

Dumar's hatred is rightfully justified.

Dumar_sl · May 22, 2013

Jarnin_sl said:
Man, this really shows the divide between fantasy fans and science fiction fans. Fantasy fans have no problem with suspension of disbelief because it's MAGIC! Science fiction fans, on the other hand, run into problems with suspension of disbelief all the time because they are usually in a position of knowledge, or at least take the time to familiarize themselves with the things being discussed.

And yes, precisely.

Zhakrin · May 22, 2013

The only thing i could think of when watching the movie is how much it reminded me of Wing Commander 4, and how much it sucked that they wasted using Malcom Mcdowell on that other star trek movie.

Hatorade · May 22, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
Dumar's hatred is rightfully justified.

Forget to switch accounts?

Also you in this thread:http://youtu.be/Kdgt1ZHkvnM?t=6m15sAKA just move on or watch it please.

j00t · May 22, 2013

Jarnin_sl said:
Man, this really shows the divide between fantasy fans and science fiction fans. Fantasy fans have no problem with suspension of disbelief because it's MAGIC! Science fiction fans, on the other hand, run into problems with suspension of disbelief all the time because they are usually in a position of knowledge, or at least take the time to familiarize themselves with the things being discussed.

i find that to be an arrogant and naive statement. go have a discussion about lotr or a song of ice and fire with someone who grew up reading those books and ask them if they are familiarized with the subject matter or if they simply "turned their brains off" while reading it. in fact, the whole "it's MAGIC" arguement is completely invalidated by anyone who is familiar with the term "dues ex machina." everyone hates them and most people, inculding hard core fantasy genre fans don't buy into the "it's MAGIC" arguement. it's not an issue of whether or not it's sci-fi or sci-fantasy because sci-fi does the SAME crap sometimes... except instead of it being MAGIC it's SCIENCE.

that's not the difference between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. that's the difference between good and bad writing.

Caliane · May 22, 2013

Jarnin_sl said:
Spoilering for brevities sake.

You mean byyourdefinition.

Probably the most advanced and far-fetched technology in Star Trek, but not impossible. Simply implausible.

Q isn't exactly a great example. He's an alien that belongs to a super advanced civilization. And like many super advanced civilizations shown in Trek, they tend to have powers and abilities that can't be explained by modern technology. So yeah, mostly fantasy, but Arthur C. Clarke made up that whole, "Suffciently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" statement for exactly this purpose.

Really? I mean, we have 3D virtual reality environments now. What we don't have are the cool projectors that can project light onto a force field that can give people the sensation of real objects or people, but it's plausible.

Yeah, I omitted the word "magic" because it has no bearing in this case. We discovered the electron in the late 19th century, and at that time people had no idea what use it would have, if any. Now we live in a civilization that is based on electronics.

We just discovered the Higgs Boson a couple years ago. That's the particle that imparts mass to matter, and since inertia only effects matter, there MIGHT be something to inertial cancellation. It's plausible.

Not fantasy, just not really science. A tachyon is a postulated particle of light that travels faster than light and backwards through time. What you're really complaining about with this is the effect that reverse tachyon beam had, not the fact that they have reverse tachyon pulses in Trek.

But yeah, I'm not a fan of the amounts of technobabble the writers would throw out in the later years of Trek, and they used reverse tachyon pulses as a catch-all solution for a bunch of different technobabble problems. I chalk that up to bad writing and bad oversight by executive producers.

The CIA believed that ESP was a thing up until the mid 1970s. I don't think it's possible, but it's plausible depending on the mechanism used. Technological neural link? Plausible. Touching a dudes face and sharing his memories and thoughts? Probably not.

Only because you've never taken the time to look into this shit. And based on your post history, I'd assume that you're a bigger fan of fantasy than science fiction (actual sci-fi, you know, the hard stuff). And that's OK! I like fantasy too, but I take the time to look this shit up because I want to know if it's plausible or not. And a lot of it is.

You mean like the technical manuals that were written by Trek technical consultants and producers and used by Trek writers to establish rules of how technology works in their universe? Fantasy writers typically don't do shit like this, because magic generally has little to no rules. Technology does, and the fact that the Trek producers (the technical guys who came up with most of this shit in the first place) made an effort makes this science fiction, not fantasy.

I don't mean to come off as condescending, but have you actually ever read any of the technical manuals? The spend a great deal of time explaining how replicators work and where they get the materials for that chocolate cake Troi likes. And it's based on real-world science.

A space ship is designed to keep the interior pressure from exploding the ship. A submarine is designed to keep the interior pressure from being imploded by exterior pressures. That's two opposing functions (AND a Futurama joke)! And not only that, the Enterprise doesn't have wings. It has some maneuvering thrusters and impulse engines designed for forward propulsion. Without wings, the Enterprise would fall like a fucking stone in an atmosphere.

The ONLY rational reason why the Enterprise was hiding underwater was because J.J. Abrams saw the Avengers last year, saw the Helicarrier take off and came in his pants. So he ripped that sequence off and put it in his movie.

You should probably go back and rewatch the show then, because they explain how their technology works in almost every show. That is, unless it's already been established in previous episodes/series. By the time you get to DS9 or Voyager it's assumed that you already know how a Matter/Antimatter reactor works, and the holodeck, and the replicators because they explained that shit decades ago in another series.

Also, those Trek technical manuals are considered soft canon, since they were written by the technical consultants on the series for the writers on the series to use so they at least get some of the details right. The writers weren't forced to use those materials though, which is why in some episodes we had inconsistent uses of technologies.

Man, this really shows the divide between fantasy fans and science fiction fans. Fantasy fans have no problem with suspension of disbelief because it's MAGIC! Science fiction fans, on the other hand, run into problems with suspension of disbelief all the time because they are usually in a position of knowledge, or at least take the time to familiarize themselves with the things being discussed.

internal consistency is the only really thing that matters.
on manuals. "Fantasy writers typically don't do shit like this" holy shit are you fucking way off base. DnD manuals, Tolkien, etc. Of course these guys have manuals they keep hidden on how everything works.
The minutia of which Toril is described would probably blow your mind.

Lucas of course is a piece of shit, and didn't have a good grasp, and definitely did not have outlines or manuals. They were commissioned later however, as the EU got expanded and more authors were working with the material, and there was no set rules.

as Joot notes about bad writing.

Its magic, we dont need to explain shit, can totally work even. in the right context. Alice in wonderland, mystery science theatre, A terry pratchett novel, Hitchhikers guide. satire, parody, or a generally light hearted tone, will let us know right away, we shouldn't really need to look for real explanations for everything.

Lithose · May 22, 2013

Phazael_sl said:
ID had two main themes. Maturity (the whole Kirk not being ready for the chair thing) and vengeance (Khan wanting to fuck over the people who used his fellow supermen to blackmail him, Kirk wanting to avenge Pike, Spock bottling up his feelings about Vulcan until they bubbled over), which were pretty much central in all parts of the movie. Wrath had more dialog time to work with its themes, thanks to the reasons I already discussed, and thus dealt with them in a more philosophical manner. ID basically pushed the characters to the point of desperation and forced them to change if they wanted to overcome their issues (Khan never did), which is what character arcs generally end up being in action films.

There are several things to nitpick about ID, but a lack of story themes is not among them.

1.) Didn't nit pick the themes, was showing how the themes in Khan were worked in with the main arc in a superior fashion. While the themes in ID, while congruent, did not work on the same levels and they weren'tmeantto work on the same level, which you say in your post and even explain why.

2.) "Lack" of themes was not ID's problem, I said they were shallow. Which you just said with your final statement.

So again, going back, the reason why I was commenting was because it was said the character arcs (In terms of writing) in ID were superior--they were not. You're not arguing this. You confirm what I said about their shallower nature, the reasons for it, ect. So you're responding just to respond? I'm confused.

Phazael · May 22, 2013

What I was saying was that Khan was unable to overcome his nature. Had he done so, he might have been able to free his people and simply be imprisoned.

Dumar_sl · May 22, 2013

Hatorade_sl said:
Forget to switch accounts?

Also you in this thread:http://youtu.be/Kdgt1ZHkvnM?t=6m15sAKA just move on or watch it please.

BRO - Dumar talks about Dumar in the 3rd person. Don't ask him questions lightly.

Lithose · May 22, 2013

Phazael_sl said:
What I was saying was that Khan was unable to overcome his nature. Had he done so, he might have been able to free his people and simply be imprisoned.

Ahh, I thought you meant like the whole movie, Khan. Disregard

, I edited it while you were responding because I realized you might be talking about the character, lol.

Voyce · May 22, 2013

Movie was shit, Dumar is right. Shame when expressing himself he usually comes off as a giant faggot.

Actually I redact that, movie wasn't shit. I actually watched it and for the special effects, etc and action sequences it was ok....there just was absolutely no substance at all...not even slightly.
There are so many action movies done as well or better than Star Trek was done that don't make shit for cash, and either have more or at least the same amount of plot validation as Star Trek, but will never earn near the money simply because they're not called "Star Trek".

Jarnin_sl · May 22, 2013

Spoilered for length...

j00t_sl said:
go have a discussion about lotr or a song of ice and fire with someone who grew up reading those books and ask them if they are familiarized with the subject matter or if they simply "turned their brains off" while reading it.

So now we're going to compare high fantasy with soft science fiction? If you're going to make a comparison, lets stick like with like, shall we?

j00t_sl said:
in fact, the whole "it's MAGIC" arguement is completely invalidated by anyone who is familiar with the term "dues ex machina."

Deus Ex Machina refers to a plot device that solves a seemingly intractable problem to move the story along. Magic is exactly deus ex machina, particular when someone dies and then is resurrected by a plot device, like augment blood. How does augment blood bring the dead back to life? Nobody knows, not even the doctor. That's not science fiction, it's fantasy.

j00t_sl said:
everyone hates them and most people, inculding hard core fantasy genre fans don't buy into the "it's MAGIC" arguement.

Again, you're comparing high fantasy with soft science fiction...

High fantasy is comparable with hard science fiction.
Low fantasy is comparable with soft science fiction.

j00t_sl said:
it's not an issue of whether or not it's sci-fi or sci-fantasy because sci-fi does the SAME crap sometimes... except instead of it being MAGIC it's SCIENCE.

that's not the difference between sci-fi and sci-fantasy. that's the difference between good and bad writing.

That's the difference between soft science fiction and hard science fiction, and fantasy and high fantasy. Writing ability has nothing to do with how deep a writer wants to dive into the background to make their fictional universe seem realistic.

Caliane_sl said:
internal consistency is the only really thing that matters.
on manuals. "Fantasy writers typically don't do shit like this" holy shit are you fucking way off base. DnD manuals, Tolkien, etc. Of course these guys have manuals they keep hidden on how everything works.

I guess I should be more specific. LOW fantasy writers typically don't take the time to write how magic works. The difference here is that Tolkien and most D&D writersweren't writing low fantasy, they were writing high fantasy, which is equivalent to hard science fiction. They do the exposition because that's part of the job, which is to make their fictional worlds/universes as realistic and believable as they can.
The same can be said about soft science fiction! Soft science fiction writer typically don't care if their technologies are consistent with modern science. Hard science fiction authors do care, which is why hard science fiction tends to stray away from Faster-Than-Light travel and other technologies that are seemingly impossible according to modern science.

Of course they can always write in loop-holes, and sometimes those loop-holes appear in real life if you look hard enough (see:Alcubierre drive).

But back to Star Trek Into Darkness. At its best it's a space opera. At worst, it's soft science fiction with plot holes large enough to fly the Enterprise through. Take your pick.

I'm not saying I didn't like the movie. I'm not saying anybody that did like it is stupid because they like it, either. All I'm saying is that, if you look at it compared to other science fiction stories, it falls flat. The writers took short cuts and made silly choices, and the director never appreciated the franchise in the first place so he changed it from one subgenre of speculative fiction to another.

j00t · May 22, 2013

I think we are arguing the same point because I clearly stated that this movie wasn't sci fi

Jarnin_sl · May 22, 2013

j00t_sl said:
I think we are arguing the same point because I clearly stated that this movie wasn't sci fi

Heh. I think at this point the debate has migrated into the differences between speculative fiction subgenres (low & high fantasy vs. soft & hard science fiction, and what constitutes high fantasy and hard science fiction compared to low fantasy and soft science ficiton).

But it's becoming boring to me already.

Kreugen · May 22, 2013

Jarnin_sl said:
Man, this really shows the divide between fantasy fans and science fiction fans. Fantasy fans have no problem with suspension of disbelief because it's MAGIC! Science fiction fans, on the other hand, run into problems with suspension of disbelief all the time because they are usually in a position of knowledge, or at least take the time to familiarize themselves with the things being discussed.

Ithinkyou are saying that Star Trek fans didn't like this movie because they expect everything Star Trek to be believable science and only "science fantasy" fans could enjoy Into Darkness?

Because, well, yes and no. Maybe that's true for some, but I can suspend my disbelief for this movie because I always suspend my disbelief for Star Trek, because for me it requires it. I see this movie no different than anything else Star Trek with its sling shotting around the sun to go back in time and transferring ones entire memories by touching someone's face and transporters that can beam through mountains and bulkheads but only if it isn't windy outside. It's not exactly Carl Sagan, is what I'm getting at. I read Sagan and Herbert and Clarke and watched TOS before TNG even existed. Compared to the sci-fi of the time, Star Trek WAS the science fantasy.

Dumar_sl · May 22, 2013

You guys still don't fucking get it. I want to know what subgenre this movie is; it can't even be called light scifi or science fantasy. I want to know what subgenre 2009 ST was, when shitdoesn't fucking make sense. It doesn't make sense. At all. Get it? No sense. It was never fucking explained where the fleet was, what red matter was, why Kirk skipped ahead a rank or 7 to be captain of the fucking flagship, nothing. Nothing is ever fucking explained in these modern 'action movies'. Why don't you just watch a fucking cg lightshow? Why do you even need characters or a fucking script? Oh, titties! Well, we can put random titty shots in your cg light show. Is that what you want? Would that make a 'good popcorn flick'? Does everything in the fucking world need to be a stupid popcorn flick? Does every movie released need to turn into retarded piles of monkey shit because people are sheep and too stupid to spend money to think a little? Is that it? Do all movies, music, games, need to turn into steaming piles of garbage guised with euphemisms like accessibility, light-hearted, and 'fun, watchable' because people are too stupid, and the beancounters want to extract as much money as possible? Is that what we're doing here? Are we not making good movies for the sake of good? Are we turning ST into another fucking WoW?

Fucking knuckle-dragging apes.

Star Trek - Into Darkness

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

Buzzfeed Editor

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

shitlord

shitlord

shitlord

Trakanon Raider

A nice asshole.

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Avatar of War Slayer

Buzzfeed Editor

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

Shit Lord Supreme

shitlord

Silver Baronet of the Realm

shitlord

Vyemm Raider

shitlord