Star Trek Into Darkness (posible spoilers)

[violiavampyr]

Ok. Actually Abrams said he came to love Star Trek, but didn't care for it as a kid.
So how? Elaborate. People keep being really vague about their anger with these movies. Just what is so bad? Star Trek is supposed to be a"Wagon Train to the Stars." Action, adventure, conflict, even romance and tragedy. The movies have that- just compressed.

For the past several days people have been throwing around that Star Trek somehow is more philosophical than Star Wars, except it's not. Not the movies (maybe TMP, but that movie was a total flop), not even really TOS. Some social commentary, yes, but it was topical, not philosophical. And the later series really had more time to devote to letting the audience know the characters.

I've watched and enjoyed Star Trek since I was 10. So, over half my life. All but two of the movies, and most of the series. I've really enjoyed the movies. Fun, like Wrath of Khan fun, like Search for Spock fun. My dad, who watched the original series when it first aired enjoyed them. My boyfriends late BFF loved it, and HE was a die hard fan.

I'm totally comfortable with the updates because they were necessary- logically, you must see that in order for the franchise to survive it had be done.

What actually has been really irritating to me is that in none, none of the ultra-critical reviews that wax about a supposed lack of moral compass and philosophical ideals, none of them mention the inclusion of a real person in the ranks of Star Fleet. The bald, black woman that took over for Checkov? The bf said he was really surprised that they did that. He said she looked like someone you'd really find in the military. Ok, yeah, she was a background person, but still. Step in the right direction.

[smileyeagle1021]

I have to ask exactly how they have been butchered? Is it the lack of drawn out flip chart scenes (I love Undiscovered Country to death, but seriously, what the hell was with that flip chart they brought in)? Was it the moral discussions being placed in logical places between characters who have a reason to be having the discussion rather than in forced grandstanding? Was it the lack of overacting from Shatner?
I'm not sure I would call myself a die hard fan, but definitely a Trekkie/Trekker, and I recognize that this wasn't change for change sake. These updates needed to happen to still be relevent today, and for that I am greatful that we found someone who is willing to make them.

[Sonoma]

Going to see it Friday with BFF & Bro-in-Law. Just wondering if there's an extra scene at the end of the credits? I've searched online and haven't found any answers yet. Hate sitting through the credits to find there's nothing there.

[violiavampyr]

There's not.

[MoonCat]

You know guys, I kind of get where Moirae's coming from. I could have gone that way myself. One of my sisters is leaning that way. We're all in our 50's, we watched the original show back in the 1960's and it was a major part of our imaginative/creative lives. It's still one of the major reasons I write space opera fiction.

But, for myself, I made the decision to accept that this is AU Star Trek. It's not the original series. It never can be. Half the original actors are dead, the others too old to do those parts anymore (other than walk-ons). Even the spin-offs are something that can't be replicated (pun not quite intended). The spin-offs changed some things, too: The Klingons are a perfect example of that.

Life goes on. Things are handed down to a new generation. There are legit criticisms of this whole franchise: The female characters and the non-white characters still don't have strong storylines, there are no LGBT characters, etc. There's still so much left to explore, not only in the original characters' lives, but in the whole Star Trek universe.

The focus of Star Trek was exploration, not just into unknown areas of space but of the human spirit and intellect. As long as they at least make an attempt to touch on those, I'm willing to see where they go from here. The old series will always exist as a touchstone.

These opinions are my own and are not meant in any way as a criticism of Moirae's point of view.

[violiavampyr]

Ok- this is a pretty good explanation of what I've been trying to articulate- it makes a good point, Roddenberry didn't care for the first Star Trek II, or VI for that matter.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2...-great-debates

[Sonoma]

There's not.

Thanks. Now to decide 2D vs 3D.

[Jester]

Some spoilers ahead!!! You've been warned...


Saw it tonight in 3D with a friend.

Liked but didn't love the first one. Wasn't sure if I'd see this one, but my friend wanted to go, and his girlfriend had zero interest in seeing it.

Glad I saw it. Far superior to the first one in so many ways. The actors are clearly more comfortable in their roles, and have actually become more like their roles. Spock especially is getting the whole Spock thing down. Ditto Bones.

Favorite line: "Mr. Sulu, remind me never to piss you off."

Least favorite part of the movie: the Spock-Spock seen. It seemed forced, and it wasn't in any way necessary, other than to give Nimoy a cameo.

Overall, worth seeing, worth seeing in 3D, and better in most ways than its predecessor.

[Kheldarson]

Least favorite part of the movie: the Spock-Spock seen. It seemed forced, and it wasn't in any way necessary, other than to give Nimoy a cameo.

A little forced, but it made sense. If you're attempting to outsmart a rather strong enemy who seems to out do you at all turns, wouldn't you contact someone with greater knowledge?

[smileyeagle1021]

there are no LGBT characters

You can thank Rick Berman for that... he answered the question as to why there was no gay characters in Next Generation as "it has been previously established, there is no disease in the Star Trek universe." (Not a direct quote that I know of, but that's as close as I can remember it). I guess that might also be why I'm not dissapointed by the lack of deep thought in the JJ Abrams movies, it's been missing in Star Trek for 20 years now, I've had time to get used to it.

[Jester]

A little forced, but it made sense. If you're attempting to outsmart a rather strong enemy who seems to out do you at all turns, wouldn't you contact someone with greater knowledge?

Yes, but no knowledge was imparted or received. And while it could be argued that young Spock could not have known what the result would be ahead of time, the truth is he could and would, since old Spock had told him previously, to paraphrase, "No spoilers, kid."

[violiavampyr]

You can thank Rick Berman for that... he answered the question as to why there was no gay characters in Next Generation as "it has been previously established, there is no disease in the Star Trek universe." (Not a direct quote that I know of, but that's as close as I can remember it). I guess that might also be why I'm not dissapointed by the lack of deep thought in the JJ Abrams movies, it's been missing in Star Trek for 20 years now, I've had time to get used to it.

And if you asked Roddenberry it's been missing in everything The Motion Picture and the first couple seasons of TNG (because there's not supposed to be internal conflict in the utopian future of Starfleet and the Federation).

That's why I keep asking people what they want from Star Trek, but I keep not getting answers.

[Kheldarson]

Yes, but no knowledge was imparted or received. And while it could be argued that young Spock could not have known what the result would be ahead of time, the truth is he could and would, since old Spock had told him previously, to paraphrase, "No spoilers, kid."

What do you mean no knowledge was imparted? It implied knowledge was given. Spock Prime said, "That being said, Khan was the greatest enemy we ever faced (insert description he gave of Khan here since I only saw it once...)."

AU Spock asks, "But did you beat him?"

Prime: "Yes. But it cost Jim greatly."

AU: "How did you beat him?" *end scene*

Even if Prime didn't give him anymore info after that (and something tells me that wasn't the case), AU Spock still has more information than he started with. He knows that A)it's going to be tricky and B) it's going to take sacrifice.

[smileyeagle1021]

Even if Prime didn't give him anymore info after that (and something tells me that wasn't the case), AU Spock still has more information than he started with. He knows that A)it's going to be tricky and B) it's going to take sacrifice.

And more importantly, C) he now knows that it can be done.
Knowing it can be done is half the challenge, once you know that it becomes a much simpler matter of figuring out how. Yeah, figuring out how isn't exactly easy, but at least you now how a defined end point to work towards.

[Moirae]

To address why I feel they are butchering the original...

They have massively changed the characters personalities, and their histories. Vulcan has been totally eliminated which changes the entire history of the federation, and makes the vulcans a bunch of homeless refugees. The vulcans were and should be a linchpin of the federation.

The story of Star Trek is not just about exploration, its also about the goodness of humanity. Not in that they have big guns, but that they can survive anything by working together peacefully between each other and other races to solve extremely difficult problems. All the failings of humanity... poverty, homelessness, lack of education, hunger, and more... in the original Star Trek these have all been solved. Profit is no longer the sole focus of the human race. The original Star Trek (and by this I always mean the show from the 60's, Next Generation, DS9, and Enterprise) focused on overcoming humanities flaws through understanding, and kindness. The world created was Utopian in nature. The show was used to even showcase and protest many of the problems common in the eras the different shows were created including racism, homosexuality, and more.

Abrams has completely ignored everything that the original Star Trek promoted and stood for. He is more concerned with flash and bang than with something that will stand the test of time.

Heck, even the original Enterprises were warmer and more welcoming. They were not ships of war like the new Enterprise is. They were ships that were meant to be home. Welcoming. A way to make everyone comfortable with it. To feel like this is something that we can accomplish.

Star Trek has been a beacon of "we can do it, if we stand together and work for a common good. We can be more than rats scratching vaguely in the dirt to barely survive. Abrams has ignored this completely because he wants big explosions and shiny lights.

Yes, I feel that he has butchered everything that Star Trek stands for. It used to be about hope.