Author Topic: Into Darkness  (Read 2081 times)

Offline AricwithanA

  • The One and Only
  • Senior Developer
  • Admiral
  • **
  • Posts: 2361
  • Cookies: 18
  • UI Leader
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2013, 11:25:01 PM »
At this point Spoon, I don't think anything anyone says will really get you to see any other perspective.  I would wager there are few here that actually 'hate' the movies (the type of defensive writing from you is showing that is what you are wanting/expecting/seeing), the rest just have logical issues with the JJ-verse.


Can you please explain what Star Trek is? To you anyway? I keep hearing that but no one really explains it, to me it's still Star Trek, so some of this logic escapes me. So if you don't mind elaborating on what defines Star Trek and what makes it so (no pun intended).

Star Trek is a lot of things, but most importantly, it doesn't treat the viewer like they are idiot.  In the end, that is what this all comes down to, at least for me.  When I can see blatant plot holes, lazy writing and more, WITHOUT TRYING, there is an issue.  There is a reason why I don't watch a lot of movies and prefer to read books if I want a great story.  Sadly, in the movie industry, the story is generally left to the wayside for action action action, explosions, explosions, explosions.  Hell, just look at how praised 'Avatar' was and yet, not a speck of it was new, creative, imaginative.   Sure it looked great, but when you know exactly what is going to happen by the end by just watching  part of the movie.  Yea...

This was one of the things that pissed off people about Avengers.  The Audience knew where the final battle would happen but yet, super geniuses that are way smarter than any of us, couldn't see the obvious?


Star Trek TMP - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Family
Star Trek II - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Family
Star Trek III - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Family
Star Trek IV - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Family
Star Trek V - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction
Star Trek VI - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Family
Star Trek : Generations - Action/Mystery/Science Fiction
Star Trek: First Contact - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction
Star Trek: Insurrection - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction
Star Trek: Nemesis - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction
Star Trek (2009) - Action/Adventure/Science Fiction

Of course, but it is the balance of those things within the story and HOW the story is told is what is important.  This is why JJ wasn't the person to be doing Star Trek, he is more suited to Star Wars.  The worst movie and the worst show episode is still MORE star trek than the JJ-verse is.  The JJ-Verse is just a skin visual of startrek without a lot of actual star trek substance.

Which is fine, Star Trek has a multi-verse where anything that can be or could be, is.  What bothers me is that we now have a whole mass of people that 'THIS IS STAR TREK', and they'd be wrong.  Wrong to the point to which their mass of money will influence business ventures.  If a new series comes out and it doesn't happen in the JJ-verse and is done as we all here know things should be done, those masses that only know the JJ-verse, will leave.  They are not fans of Star Trek, they are fans of the JJ-verse.

Any Star Trek fan could easily tweak simple things withing the JJ-verse story that would have made all this go away but we would be respecting the content, respecting the creator and respecting the fans.  It wouldn't just be a cash grab for a couple movies.  The actors are freaking awesome. The visual updates are acceptable (except the Enterprise, I hate those freaking nacelles).  The rest, at this point, I know what happens in the second movie for the most part.  That is how little I care.  Sure I'll watch it, it's a trek titled movie, I'm sure I'll enjoy it,  but meh. 
"The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity. -The Sisterhood's Credo

Offline Tuskin

  • Cadet 1st Class
  • Posts: 13
  • Cookies: 0
  • Member
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2013, 02:17:35 AM »
I saw it yesterday

I loved ittttt

Offline Rob

  • Rob Archer
  • Senior Developer
  • Admiral
  • **
  • Posts: 1469
  • Cookies: 42
  • Gameplay and Scripts Lead Developer
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2013, 11:43:37 AM »

If you imagine the amount of time hours and effort people behind the scenes have put into the start trek most of us know and love for years, developing rules and principals to try and keep the universe consistent granted they don't always succeed but with the prime universe you always got the feeling that their were rules, governing not just the science but the way characters behaved, there was more to it, more depth.

People like Micheal and Denise Okkuda who put the insane amount of work into the props and computer screens the people who wrote the book on creating the LCARs interface which has become a staple of federation ships, or James Doohan a man who for all intents and purposes created the Language used by the Klingon, which is recognized as an actual spoken language or Rick Sternback, Doug Drexler people who pretty much defined how much of this futuristic technology worked.

In JJ-Abrahms movies you get the feeling that things happen because the plot demands it. Ok Yeah Great its an alternative universe but you still have to abide by the trek rules of physics, we lambasted enterprise over the 5 days to Q'ronos in Broken Bow and yet in JJ-Abrahms universe the enterprise makes it in there in a few hours. New Klingon make up.... Why exactly? what happened in this universe to change them? What was wrong with the old ones? Why change the tribbles? The Ones used in TOS were fine they translated well into the DS9 episode, Why are these ships bigger than their prime universe counter parts? Why do the NEED to be bigger than the Prime Universe counterparts? Why do ships need to be built on the surface now, when its been well established that starfleet uses orbital facilities for star ship construction?

I know these seem like insignificant nitpicks but many can be overlooked with a strong plot and yes i do accept that Into Darkness was a stronger plot than its predecessor, and i enjoyed benedict cumberbatch as Kahn, but its just not enough as soon as i found myself enjoying something the movie would have something stupid happen to undermined the plot. For example i loved the Opening 15 mins with the enterprise dealing with the volcano and trying to save a pre-warp civilisation, it seemed to really be in the spirit of the show and what the prime directive was originally intended to be instead of the mangled mess it became by the time voyager rolled around. Hell the 10 min preview got me to see the damned thing but after that the movie started to come apart. Kirks violation of the prime directive and his deliberate lying on official records and his report to starfleet and his response to spock who followed proper procedure was face palmingly stupid, and starfleets reaction which basically amounted to a slap on the wrist and a stern warning to never ever do it again. (Thats disregarding the bizzar promotion system starfleet seems to have where a cadet can become captain, and a captain can become a cadet.) Then you have the 100 light year transporter (Making you wonder why you would even need starships.) Section 31 who for a top secret black ops organisation that's not supposed to exist or at least exist outside the chain of command has a remarkably nice set of offices in London.

I went on to much of a rant with this but we are trek fans we did this with every movie, we were critical of Nemesis, Enterprise and Voyager nearly everyone i know hates threshold and then there's the pacing of Star Trek The motion picture. So I ask you why should Into Darkness and 2009 be any different what exactly qualifies them as exceptions to the rule? For the record I dont hate them because they are different, i dislike them because they are lazilly written and full of plot holes i'm not just some butt hurt fan complaining about it not being the trek im used to, these are geniune complaints. I don't like these movies because they are flawed, the writing is flawed and so are the plots, the characters just aren't believable and neither is the universe they exist in.

My Point is that people in some places have given 25 years or more of their lives to the franchise and to make genes universe feel believable and I wonder if JJ-Abrahms Star trek would have the same impact on the current generation as the original series and TNG had on Generations past, or will is it just be another Sci Fi Movie that will be quickly forgotten.

Yes the movie is Star Trek in name, but to me it lacks the substance and depth that makes the star trek franchise so appealing and i think its why allot of the fans myself included don't seem to enjoy it as much as we do the originals.

My one final point is that the biggest flaw of these movies is that they are trying to be star trek movies, and i think that's pulling them down. Its extreamly hard for me as a fan to judge the movies, because I'm approaching it from a trek background The baggage of continuity. There are really two questions that need to be asked: "Is it a good sci fi movie?" and "Is it a good Star Trek movie?"
Disclaimers: All features, opinions, estimates and guess work are based purely on what is possible, not what is practical, or what you can expect from the finished product, but it is what i'd like it to be.

"I came, i saw i mercilessly bludgeoned your hopes and dreams into a bloody pulp with a lead pipe.... You're welcome."

"Giving me the Star Trek Technical manuals for developing Starship systems was such a bad idea"

"Starships are painted yellow prior to launch in order to show stress point

Offline Sheva

  • Pointeared and long-bearded Romulan
  • Admiral
  • Posts: 1216
  • Cookies: 22
  • Wiki writer
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2013, 04:39:51 PM »
Cookie for you, you said it.
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.

Battlestation:
Asrock X79 Extreme 11
Intel Core I7 - 3820 (@4.4 GHz)
AMD Radeon HD 7970 (@1150/1600)
32 GB 2400 DDR3 RAM @CL9
256 GB Samsung 830 SSD
1200W be-quiet! Dark Power pro PSU

Offline spoondawg

  • Explorer
  • Jr. Lieutenant
  • Posts: 149
  • Cookies: 14
  • Starfleet Command Division
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2013, 07:17:00 PM »
At this point Spoon, I don't think anything anyone says will really get you to see any other perspective.  I would wager there are few here that actually 'hate' the movies (the type of defensive writing from you is showing that is what you are wanting/expecting/seeing), the rest just have logical issues with the JJ-verse.

I'm not being "defensive" I agree that all the plot holes and and non-canonical/logical use of tech to create plot devices is rather silly, but I'm trying to get some legitimate answers as to why people feel the way they feel about the new flicks, outside of the typical "it's not Trek enough" so far you and Rob were the only ones that actually explained it in a way where it is actually comprehensible. That's all I was really fishing for. There was a an article that just came out that I saw on my Facebook this morning, and don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing with anyone about how good or bad the movies may be, beauty like opinions, are in the eye of the beholder.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/six-reasons-why-star-trek-darkness-beginners-guide-star-trek?src=SOC&dom=fb

Trust me when it comes to Star Trek I'm definitely a far bigger fan of Prime, but using these new movies to generate income to keep Star Trek alive and well? I have no problem with that, like I've said in a previous post - Ultimately, I hope this paves the way for a new Prime TV show.

As far as the new look of some of the species, Yeah no idea why they decided to change them up at all, but there have already been changes to characters over time as well, like from TOS to TMP the Klingons looked completely different, as well as the Romulans from ST:V to TNG, to name a couple.

But I can agree that it's definitely watered-down Trek, but the notion that people are screaming tech manual over substance is a little silly to me in that regard. But all in all, I still think its good for the franchise as a whole. But again, I still prefer prime.
Captain, USS Concordia
Starfleet

"Boldy Going"

Offline AricwithanA

  • The One and Only
  • Senior Developer
  • Admiral
  • **
  • Posts: 2361
  • Cookies: 18
  • UI Leader
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2013, 12:02:30 AM »
I'm not being "defensive" I agree that all the plot holes and and non-canonical/logical use of tech to create plot devices is rather silly, but I'm trying to get some legitimate answers as to why people feel the way they feel about the new flicks, outside of the typical "it's not Trek enough" so far you and Rob were the only ones that actually explained it in a way where it is actually comprehensible. That's all I was really fishing for. There was a an article that just came out that I saw on my Facebook this morning, and don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing with anyone about how good or bad the movies may be, beauty like opinions, are in the eye of the beholder.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/six-reasons-why-star-trek-darkness-beginners-guide-star-trek?src=SOC&dom=fb

Trust me when it comes to Star Trek I'm definitely a far bigger fan of Prime, but using these new movies to generate income to keep Star Trek alive and well? I have no problem with that, like I've said in a previous post - Ultimately, I hope this paves the way for a new Prime TV show.

As far as the new look of some of the species, Yeah no idea why they decided to change them up at all, but there have already been changes to characters over time as well, like from TOS to TMP the Klingons looked completely different, as well as the Romulans from ST:V to TNG, to name a couple.

But I can agree that it's definitely watered-down Trek, but the notion that people are screaming tech manual over substance is a little silly to me in that regard. But all in all, I still think its good for the franchise as a whole. But again, I still prefer prime.

The article you linked to though is proving the point I and others have been trying to make:

Every reason that was cited in the article are the exact reasons why it ISN'T a beginners guide to star trek.  Any viewer that only knows the JJ-verse and then wants to get into the original series is going to be heavily dissapointed.  There is quite a bit of time of people talking, there is back information on the aliens, there is the prime directive (which I'm wagering now was broken in the movie), space IS a character, '"bones thrown to trekkies" - Prime Trek is all bone and if the bone is distracting.....

This is why I disagree that these movies will lead to a tv series that will do well.  So many right now only know the JJ-verse.  They don't want, don't like or don't care about what is actually Star Trek. 


The alien changes, yes they have changed through the years, but that was species development for a story universe as it was growing.  Right now, Everything before the first movie would be as we know it.  Enterprise is fully the same, Archer did everything he did.  If anything Klingons should look like humans, not klingon and even if we saw a non-changed klingon, their appearance is pretty well known now.  The fact that JJ thought he needed to change their look shows a full lack of disrespect for the content and the fans.  It is an example of why the fans of trek, do not matter in any of this.  Our money, at least in the movies, are dwarfed by everyone else. 

I don't really see a lot of people screaming about tech manual.  They would be in the minority within the Trek fans as far as I can see. 
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 12:13:37 AM by AricwithanA »
"The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity. -The Sisterhood's Credo

Offline ECGadget

  • Rear Admiral Gadget, 9th Fleet
  • Jr. Lieutenant
  • Posts: 148
  • Cookies: 3
  • Sweet Niblets!
    • The Ninth Fleet
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2013, 08:18:55 PM »
@Rob you get a cookie for that one. These are the issues I have with the new Trek. It isn't just that it isn't Trek that I've been exposed to all 20 years of my life, but it just isn't believable to me anymore. It may be Star Trek in a sense on the surface, but underneath that it seems to have lost everything that Star Trek was. When I was a kid, I'd dream of a world in which Star Trek existed and I was on a starship exploring the massive universe. It was serious, diplomatic but also exciting. Every little thing looked appealing to me. Even Voyager was appealing to me, although it wasn't my favourite series.

I found myself thinking the other day about this new trek and I thought to myself, "Now that I have all this knowledge, and we've got touch screen phones and all this technology available, is the JJ-verse trek what I would want to be a part of?"
My answer after thinking about it was a firm no. I would still rather be in the world of TNG/Voy/DS9 and the likes. And it isn't because I prefer the prime designs of ships etc (which I do lol), rather it is because that Star Trek to me is something that has a lot under the surface. It has a logical and disciplined structure. There are rules to be followed, consequences to actions and a fundemental relationship to real science. I actually knew the contents of two of my lectures inside out simply because I studied how a warp core would be built up, that's how realistic it is to me. To me, that IS Star Trek how it should be and I do not think anything will ever change my feelings about that.

Star Trek will be a part of my life forever, but I really doubt this new Trek will be part of the life of the new fans... I may be wrong, but I feel it will fade away in a few years, just like other Sci Fi films.

"One Sky, One Destiny" - Kairi

Offline spoondawg

  • Explorer
  • Jr. Lieutenant
  • Posts: 149
  • Cookies: 14
  • Starfleet Command Division
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2013, 10:59:04 PM »
The article you linked to though is proving the point I and others have been trying to make:

Every reason that was cited in the article are the exact reasons why it ISN'T a beginners guide to star trek.  Any viewer that only knows the JJ-verse and then wants to get into the original series is going to be heavily dissapointed.  There is quite a bit of time of people talking, there is back information on the aliens, there is the prime directive (which I'm wagering now was broken in the movie), space IS a character, '"bones thrown to trekkies" - Prime Trek is all bone and if the bone is distracting.....

This is why I disagree that these movies will lead to a tv series that will do well.  So many right now only know the JJ-verse.  They don't want, don't like or don't care about what is actually Star Trek. 


The alien changes, yes they have changed through the years, but that was species development for a story universe as it was growing.  Right now, Everything before the first movie would be as we know it.  Enterprise is fully the same, Archer did everything he did.  If anything Klingons should look like humans, not klingon and even if we saw a non-changed klingon, their appearance is pretty well known now.  The fact that JJ thought he needed to change their look shows a full lack of disrespect for the content and the fans.  It is an example of why the fans of trek, do not matter in any of this.  Our money, at least in the movies, are dwarfed by everyone else. 

I don't really see a lot of people screaming about tech manual.  They would be in the minority within the Trek fans as far as I can see.

Your single major flaw in what your saying is the assumption that most of the movie-goers are uninitiated viewers, those that have just seen JJ-Trek. I think its the other way around, if I had to venture a guess as to the amount of people that were Trek fans before the movie(s) came out were probably looking at at least 3/4s of everyone that has gone and watched them was probably already a fan. I seriously doubt that people just out of the blue were like "oh Star Trek? Whats that dude? Let me go check it out and find out!" Yeah I also get the fact that its not "Trek" enough, you know cause you can't have Trek without more than 50% of the movie being boring technobabble and dialogue that just drags out movies and ultimately kills them because people don't pay $15 bucks a pop to watch C-Span in space. Again, all the back story stuff is far more suited to a TV show format where you can have a single plot last an entire season, kinda like Enterprise's 4th season, and we saw how well that worked out.

I will agree that some of the aliens should not have been changed appearance wise, but honestly that's just a nitpick and I really don't find it that serious, especially considering the fact that it hasn't been the first time, as I've said before.

On the topic of the prime directive - it's been broken before, more than once. That's all I need to say on that subject.

As soon as you get over the nitpicks, you'll be able to enjoy the movie. Until then you can be content in knowing that your view of Star Trek hasn't been corrupted. I'd still be willing to bet money that a new show is on the horizon, you can't get 165 million in the box office the opening week without garnering some attention, and since they won't be able to use the actors that are in the movies (huge price tag, alternate reality, plus other things) logically it would have to take place in Prime Trek's timeline.

This article explains my take on it almost to the T - http://www.tvguide.com/News/Why-Star-Trek-Should-Return-TV-1065827.aspx as well as this one, especially the last few paragraphs - http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_completist/2013/05/star_trek_movies_and_tv_series_which_are_the_best_why.html



QAPLA'
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 11:34:35 PM by spoondawg »
Captain, USS Concordia
Starfleet

"Boldy Going"

Offline AricwithanA

  • The One and Only
  • Senior Developer
  • Admiral
  • **
  • Posts: 2361
  • Cookies: 18
  • UI Leader
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2013, 02:16:53 AM »
Your single major flaw in what your saying is the assumption that most of the movie-goers are uninitiated viewers, those that have just seen JJ-Trek. I think its the other way around, if I had to venture a guess as to the amount of people that were Trek fans before the movie(s) came out were probably looking at at least 3/4s of everyone that has gone and watched them was probably already a fan. I seriously doubt that people just out of the blue were like "oh Star Trek? Whats that dude? Let me go check it out and find out!" Yeah I also get the fact that its not "Trek" enough, you know cause you can't have Trek without more than 50% of the movie being boring technobabble and dialogue that just drags out movies and ultimately kills them because people don't pay $15 bucks a pop to watch C-Span in space. Again, all the back story stuff is far more suited to a TV show format where you can have a single plot last an entire season, kinda like Enterprise's 4th season, and we saw how well that worked out.

I will agree that some of the aliens should not have been changed appearance wise, but honestly that's just a nitpick and I really don't find it that serious, especially considering the fact that it hasn't been the first time, as I've said before.

On the topic of the prime directive - it's been broken before, more than once. That's all I need to say on that subject.

As soon as you get over the nitpicks, you'll be able to enjoy the movie. Until then you can be content in knowing that your view of Star Trek hasn't been corrupted. I'd still be willing to bet money that a new show is on the horizon, you can't get 165 million in the box office the opening week without garnering some attention, and since they won't be able to use the actors that are in the movies (huge price tag, alternate reality, plus other things) logically it would have to take place in Prime Trek's timeline.

This article explains my take on it almost to the T - http://www.tvguide.com/News/Why-Star-Trek-Should-Return-TV-1065827.aspx as well as this one, especially the last few paragraphs - http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_completist/2013/05/star_trek_movies_and_tv_series_which_are_the_best_why.html



QAPLA'


I still wager that is incorrect.  I'll start with a quote from your first link there:

"You can’t make a lucrative sci-fi flick about people sitting around in a conference room debating options for resolving the situation peacefully—but something that can be accurately teased as primarily consisting of thrilling space battles is not the real Star Trek. A bunch of friendly folks using advanced technology to help people? That can only be profitable, I suspect, on the small screen."

That about sums it up.  Star Trek fans, if they are the majority of people watching these movies in the theaters, having what we see on tv in a movie, is something Trek fans are perfectly fine with in the area that the quote is talking about.  The people that doesn't work for is everyone else.  Everyone else is what makes up the majority of movie viewers.  This is why what we know as Star Trek, doesn't fit very well within the movie scene, as stated in the quote above.  If Trek fans were such a large percentage of movie viewers we would have seen the movies taken slightly different forms and more than likely, JJ would not have been the director.

No matter how much be parse it, Trek fans are a minority when it comes to the total of movie watchers, this is why a Trek movie having more of the aspects that make Trek, Trek, do not translate well into movie sales.  This isn't just Star Trek but pretty much all movies and movie series.  Especially when a story is brought from one medium to another.  Now there are a few times when it works well, Marvel has been excellent with this transition but we have content creators that created the original content or are highly involved in the movie side of things.  They respect the content, the fans and the story.  This is why, so far the Marvel movies have been doing so well.  The entire franchise is about the fans and the knowledge of the fans.  There were not bones thrown to keep the fans happy, the movies revolve around the content the fans know and love while at the same time having the added extra to draw in all the other movie goers that are just watching this weekend blockbuster hit.  They knew how to fully maximize their profit, not make a quick cash grab.  There is  little respect for the fans or the content with the JJ-verse.

JJ and his directors didn't do that, they didn't even try.  Many people that are all behind the JJ-verse are not versed in the Prime Timeline, even so far as to they don't want to see the original stuff.  If the 'big masses' that got drawn into the JJ-verse experience the Prime Timeline on tv, why would they watch it?  It lacks the handful of things JJ can do well, and has everything else that makes Trek, Trek.  The very things, these people don't like or care about.

You are still writing defensively: 

"without more than 50% of the movie being boring technobabble and dialogue that just drags out movies and ultimately kills them because people don't pay $15 bucks a pop to watch C-Span in space."

-Yep I would easily pay that $15 for that, same with most Trek fans I'd wager (and have actually, since there are like 10 movies).  The average person/non-fan, THEY won't pay that price.

"As soon as you get over the nitpicks, you'll be able to enjoy the movie. Until then you can be content in knowing that your view of Star Trek hasn't been corrupted."

-It isn't that things are corrupted but that we have a whole lot of people that only know the JJ-verse and nothing else.  THAT is what they expect if they were to see a tv show, which isn't the case.  So sure, they make a new TV show, but it won't gain the attention that the Movies did, while Trek fans will watch it of course, we know that isn't enough with the demand of high profits there is, look at Enterprise.  The 4th season was amazing!




"The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity. -The Sisterhood's Credo

Offline spoondawg

  • Explorer
  • Jr. Lieutenant
  • Posts: 149
  • Cookies: 14
  • Starfleet Command Division
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2013, 03:49:32 AM »
I still wager that is incorrect.  I'll start with a quote from your first link there:

"You can’t make a lucrative sci-fi flick about people sitting around in a conference room debating options for resolving the situation peacefully—but something that can be accurately teased as primarily consisting of thrilling space battles is not the real Star Trek. A bunch of friendly folks using advanced technology to help people? That can only be profitable, I suspect, on the small screen."

That about sums it up.  Star Trek fans, if they are the majority of people watching these movies in the theaters, having what we see on tv in a movie, is something Trek fans are perfectly fine with in the area that the quote is talking about.  The people that doesn't work for is everyone else.  Everyone else is what makes up the majority of movie viewers.  This is why what we know as Star Trek, doesn't fit very well within the movie scene, as stated in the quote above.  If Trek fans were such a large percentage of movie viewers we would have seen the movies taken slightly different forms and more than likely, JJ would not have been the director.

That's assuming every single Star Trek fan far and wide share YOUR exact same opinion on it, and that's assuming quite a lot. You know Rodenberry didn't do TWOK because TMP was too boring right? Strangely, there wasn't nearly as big an uproar about it being contrary to what Star Trek is "supposed to be". I love Prime Star Trek, even more than I like the JJ stuff, according to your statements above, this should be impossible. But alas, that doesn't seem to be the case, and I'm not the only one who feels this way.

My primary point that you seem to be missing is that certain story telling presentations can be done better or worse depending on wether it be on the big screen or small screen. Working with time constraints, budgets, and how much they can pack into x amount of time comes into play, and that is logically why it isn't Slow Trek, obviously the director's style comes into play too but these guys spend years learning the craft, I think they know a thing or two about how to make a movie.

No matter how much be parse it, Trek fans are a minority when it comes to the total of movie watchers, this is why a Trek movie having more of the aspects that make Trek, Trek, do not translate well into movie sales.  This isn't just Star Trek but pretty much all movies and movie series.  Especially when a story is brought from one medium to another.  Now there are a few times when it works well, Marvel has been excellent with this transition but we have content creators that created the original content or are highly involved in the movie side of things.  They respect the content, the fans and the story.  This is why, so far the Marvel movies have been doing so well.  The entire franchise is about the fans and the knowledge of the fans.  There were not bones thrown to keep the fans happy, the movies revolve around the content the fans know and love while at the same time having the added extra to draw in all the other movie goers that are just watching this weekend blockbuster hit.  They knew how to fully maximize their profit, not make a quick cash grab

This I 100% agree with. but This -
There is  little respect for the fans or the content with the JJ-verse.

If you haven't seen the Into Darkness yet, you might change your mind about this statement.

JJ and his directors didn't do that, they didn't even try.  Many people that are all behind the JJ-verse are not versed in the Prime Timeline, even so far as to they don't want to see the original stuff.  If the 'big masses' that got drawn into the JJ-verse experience the Prime Timeline on tv, why would they watch it?  It lacks the handful of things JJ can do well, and has everything else that makes Trek, Trek.  The very things, these people don't like or care about.

Actually, both of the writers of the movies are absolute Star Trek geeks, JJ Abrams even said in an interview that the people involved with the new movies watched every single episode and movie that had to do with Star Trek before even beginning work on 2009.

You are still writing defensively:

What you call "defensive writing", I call driving home my point.

And for the record, by no means am I some JJTrek fanboy, I just think its a little ridiculous that people have such a hard time seeing the other side of the coin.   

Captain, USS Concordia
Starfleet

"Boldy Going"

Offline AricwithanA

  • The One and Only
  • Senior Developer
  • Admiral
  • **
  • Posts: 2361
  • Cookies: 18
  • UI Leader
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2013, 06:15:49 AM »
That's assuming every single Star Trek fan far and wide share YOUR exact same opinion on it, and that's assuming quite a lot. You know Rodenberry didn't do TWOK because TMP was too boring right? Strangely, there wasn't nearly as big an uproar about it being contrary to what Star Trek is "supposed to be". I love Prime Star Trek, even more than I like the JJ stuff, according to your statements above, this should be impossible. But alas, that doesn't seem to be the case, and I'm not the only one who feels this way.

My primary point that you seem to be missing is that certain story telling presentations can be done better or worse depending on wether it be on the big screen or small screen. Working with time constraints, budgets, and how much they can pack into x amount of time comes into play, and that is logically why it isn't Slow Trek, obviously the director's style comes into play too but these guys spend years learning the craft, I think they know a thing or two about how to make a movie.

This I 100% agree with. but This -
If you haven't seen the Into Darkness yet, you might change your mind about this statement.

Actually, both of the writers of the movies are absolute Star Trek geeks, JJ Abrams even said in an interview that the people involved with the new movies watched every single episode and movie that had to do with Star Trek before even beginning work on 2009.

What you call "defensive writing", I call driving home my point.

And for the record, by no means am I some JJTrek fanboy, I just think its a little ridiculous that people have such a hard time seeing the other side of the coin.   



Oh I wasn't saying they do.  That just still fragments things even further, making the end goal, sales, even harder and shows more to the point that movies, in general, have to pander to the average movie watcher than the fans, unless it is done correctly (again, Marvel).

Even with a boring TMP, it is still more Trek than the 2009, lol.

I already talked about the different types and ways of telling the story.  That was why I said JJ wasn't the best director for the job, he is better suited to Star Wars.  I'm all for him doing Starwars and I think he will be a benefit to the content.  Main thing there though is that his ability to just 'change' things is a bit harder.  It isn't like he is going to be reworking how the Mon Calamari right? 

Oh I'll watch it, but I'm not expecting much.  If they were such fans, why did they do the things they did?  This isn't even anything to do with the alternate timeline, this is trek and trek has a multiverse.  Any base fan could fix the glaring issues with 2009.  Anyone on these boards could take the same story premise, and even keep the majority of the content and make it 100% better and something that would have respected the content, fans and create fans of STAR TREK, not fans of JJ-Trek.  That is still the issue here.

Sure you can call it 'driving your point home' but when someone likes me, LIKES to have the dialogue and the technobabble and more along with action, it isn't driving any point at all.  hehe
"The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity. -The Sisterhood's Credo

Offline schwarzwolf

  • Commodore
  • Posts: 489
  • Cookies: 4
  • Pony
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2013, 10:02:48 PM »
With the Star Wars statement, i have to endorse this aswell. JJ Abrams is a perfect Star Wars producer, how i mentined aswell before. So he is right at the position to create the new Star Wars movie. The last Star Treks aswell felt more like a Star Wars movie.
Yes, that Kirk became a Captain after he was (or even was not) finished with academy was also a bit strange. But well, we already know this from Star Trek Online. Ok, we didn't got the best (ok, in the movie, second best, after the movie again the best) ship in the fleet. ;)
I see it yust like Enterprise. Non not in the same universe. So for me as first "deep exploration ship", after development of the warp drive, we have the Valiant class and the ship after this in the first time before the Federation time was the Deadalus class. ;)

Btw:
http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/vengeance-b.jpg
The Ponea were a species encountered by the crew of the USS Equinox after being stranded in the Delta Quadrant by an entity known as the "Caretaker" in 2371. Referred to by the Equinox crew as "the life of the Delta Quadrant," the Ponea viewed every First Contact as an excuse to throw a party.

From the Ponea, the Equinox crew also appropriated a "synaptic stimulator," a small neural interface placed behind the ear which was able to tap into the user's brain and generate images of various alien vistas. Captain Ransom would often utilize this device to experience the Tenkaran coast, a peaceful beach environment. (VOY: "Equinox", "Equinox, Part II")

Offline Sheva

  • Pointeared and long-bearded Romulan
  • Admiral
  • Posts: 1216
  • Cookies: 22
  • Wiki writer
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2013, 03:07:34 AM »
Okay, now I have seen the movie too and... I didn't like it. I don't want to start with all the plot holes, with all the hero-effects and all that stuff - other Star Trek movies had them too. But the thing I had the biggest problem with, was how evil the federation was. That movie reminded me more on the "evil universe" more than anything else.  And then all that action which was like Star Wars combined with Rambo.

Maybe its some kind of american running gag to pump in this shallow violence, like seen in many other "hollywood" films - I don't get it. And the primary target was of course again New York. Why not Reykjavik for a change? Over 90% was stars-and-stripes heroism, with only one slight difference which sets this film up from other action movies: The main evil bad did not die.

Sorry, but I can't stand this brainless patriotism. Next time we ask China to make a Star Trek film, the outcome will be similar propagandistic. *sigh*
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.

Battlestation:
Asrock X79 Extreme 11
Intel Core I7 - 3820 (@4.4 GHz)
AMD Radeon HD 7970 (@1150/1600)
32 GB 2400 DDR3 RAM @CL9
256 GB Samsung 830 SSD
1200W be-quiet! Dark Power pro PSU

Offline Rob

  • Rob Archer
  • Senior Developer
  • Admiral
  • **
  • Posts: 1469
  • Cookies: 42
  • Gameplay and Scripts Lead Developer
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2013, 04:05:12 AM »
And the primary target was of course again New York. Why not Reykjavik for a change? Over 90% was stars-and-stripes heroism, with only one slight difference which sets this film up from other action movies: The main evil bad did not die.
*sigh*

New york, i thought it was London and San Fransisco?
Disclaimers: All features, opinions, estimates and guess work are based purely on what is possible, not what is practical, or what you can expect from the finished product, but it is what i'd like it to be.

"I came, i saw i mercilessly bludgeoned your hopes and dreams into a bloody pulp with a lead pipe.... You're welcome."

"Giving me the Star Trek Technical manuals for developing Starship systems was such a bad idea"

"Starships are painted yellow prior to launch in order to show stress point

Offline MajorD

  • Fleet Admiral
  • Posts: 2771
  • Cookies: 12
  • Look Behind You
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2013, 08:14:05 AM »
Into Darkness is the most TOS movie of any Star Trek movie, more so even than the first six movies.

The movie's start is perfect. It has the prime directive being treated the right way, only to find out later that it's actually Kirk breaking the rules, on top of the obvious violation near the start, and it's all done exactly like a capsule form of a TOS episode. The Prime Directive is used to excellent effect both in the scene and after the scene, using it to create plot, instead of tripping the plot over or using it as a throw away line. It's importance is established without question, and can easily be used for future works. The characters' personalities are firmly established without any beating over the head, and done so repeatedly throughout the movie. The sheer size of the ships, in the beginning, and the end, is shown like never before. Not even the Generations crash gave a real sense of scale like the scenes in Into Darkness.

The movie's plot is then set wonderfully, with only two spoken lines.

Then we get the admirals table, yet it's completely subverted. Instead of a half hour of boring strangers talking to each other, the whole thing is cut off to establish yet more twist and mystery.
New york, i thought it was London and San Fransisco?
You're correct, it was now New York.

Offline brandongross

  • Cadet 1st Class
  • Posts: 14
  • Cookies: 1
  • Member
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2013, 11:43:27 AM »
After reading all these comments...all I can say is HOLY (bad f word capitalized), that movie was by far more than mind blowing! I seriously wish I could explain the feelings I have right now but to sum it up, I LOVE STAR TREK...LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE...and I am not one to through that dang word around like candy but wow...just wow...wowzers...I do not even remember the drive home from the movies alone, which is a story in itself, because I was in such deep amazing thought that I wish more than anything on this world that I could for one day be in a life of Star Trek...Love guys, LOVE

Offline spoondawg

  • Explorer
  • Jr. Lieutenant
  • Posts: 149
  • Cookies: 14
  • Starfleet Command Division
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2013, 02:17:10 AM »
Captain, USS Concordia
Starfleet

"Boldy Going"

Offline Sheva

  • Pointeared and long-bearded Romulan
  • Admiral
  • Posts: 1216
  • Cookies: 22
  • Wiki writer
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2013, 02:39:45 AM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ

Now imagine that for JJs movies. What a slaughter.
Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.

Battlestation:
Asrock X79 Extreme 11
Intel Core I7 - 3820 (@4.4 GHz)
AMD Radeon HD 7970 (@1150/1600)
32 GB 2400 DDR3 RAM @CL9
256 GB Samsung 830 SSD
1200W be-quiet! Dark Power pro PSU

Offline Jimmy

  • aka JimmyB76
  • Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 537
  • Cookies: 16
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2013, 06:07:46 AM »
tho i havent seen it yet, this is kinda what i would expect...
film sounds about as lame as i figured lol

Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ

Offline Maxi

  • Captain
  • Posts: 253
  • Cookies: 3
  • Keeper of the Dogs of War
Re: Into Darkness
« Reply #39 on: June 29, 2013, 11:31:23 AM »
There's something disturbing about JJ.Abrams movies that no-one recalls. The mentioned altenate reality don't exists since the Spock from the Prime Universe is still living in the past and he couldn't prevent Romulus destruction. Temporal paradox is not closed yet, so the Prime Universe and the JJ.Abrams one are the Prime. And it will be until the intereferences in the timeline made by the Nero and the Spock from the future is being ereased.

The disturbing part is the bashing intentions of JJ.Abrams over Trek franchise, ignoring all the previous matterial as source of limitations, to be able to ignore prestablished information,  while keeping at the same time the link with than matterial open through Spock.