[Trailer] Star Trek - Into Darkness

[Nellisir]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch. He's a superb Sherlock, and rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors.

He is incredible as Sherlock. Anytime I want to go mad, I think about waiting for the next season of that show.

Slightly more on topic...I'm looking forward to Star Trek. I've never been a fan of the various series (I just watched all of Stargate Universe and, just for kicks, tried to watch some Voyager afterwards - starship lost on the otherside of the galaxy, y'know - couldn't even make it through a whole episode), but the movies are usually fun. As a general rule I don't watch movies for deep insight into the societal ills of our time, or revelations about the human condition. I watch them for fun.

 

[Mallus]

As with most Kurtzman/Orci scripts they chose to almost completely ignore what was established, give a 2-finger salute to the existing fan base, and totally rewrite the situations, whenever possible adding scatological humor and sex jokes.

Not to belabor this --any more than we're already belaboring it-- but not all of the existing fanbase felt flipped off. Pretty much every old-school Trekkie I know, myself included, enjoyed the hell out of Abrams-Trek.

Also, re: sex jokes... recall that in TOS the Starfleet uniform for women was a miniskirt and go-go boots... that should qualify as a running sex joke, at least to non-1960s audiences. Also note all the cleavage and crazy up-dos.

I loved DS9. I think it's awesome.

You have great taste in Trek!

Star Trek was always more about the exploration of a future society than combat.

A lot of TOS episodes were really better described as morality plays, kinda like Playhouse 90 in Space. Then there were all the topical episodes which were pretty explicitly about the then current-day world, from a very American perspective (Cold War!, Racism! Hippies!).

And I read a great essay over at Grantland which made the case that TNG was very much about the late 80s/90s.

... look at John Wayne's True Grit--he got an oscar for that?

The Coen brothers version was much, much better.

Never made it past season 3 of DS9.

Then you're missing out on some of the best Trek ever. The Dominion War is the first, and best, attempt at a sustained dramatic arc in the Trek universe, with no shortage of standout episodes, like "In the Pale Moonlight".

I'm very much looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch. He's a superb Sherlock, and rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors.

Did you watch BC in The Last Enemy? My wife and I caught the first episode on a Netflix and weren't too impressed. Does it get better? I hope so, 'cause I really like Cumberbatch (and Francis Begbie, err, Robert Carlyle... who doesn't have a speaking role in ep. 1)

 

[sabrinathecat]

I guess our brains were off, then. For what it's worth, MoviePlotHoles identified only two major plot holes: that the Enterprise basically deserted Kirk on an ice planet, and that stars don't just suddenly explode. If you think either of these is sillier than anything seen in Ye Olde Trekke, I can't help you. (For crying out loud, the Enterprise travels back in time - and then forward again! - in Star Trek IV by slingshotting itself around the sun.)

OK, you asked for it.
First off, the grandfather paradox. The Romulans go back in time, and radically alter the time line. Right off the bat, there's a problem. Even if they don't kill the people they believe to be key players in their situation, they alter the people by causing a cascading wave of other situations which either won't occur or will occur in such a radically different way that the other people won't be the same people--their fundamental experiences of life will be totally different. MAJOR PLOT HOLE.
Romulus is destroyed by an explosion at the center of the Galaxy. <blink></blink>(blink)At. The. Center. of the. GALAXY???? (blink) Think about that for a bit.
Future Spock comes back to do what? By the time he leaves, it would be a differnt future Spock. Or are they giving him the BttF timelag window to try to fix things? Which becomes impossible once the planet Vulcan is destroyed.
If that a drop of that red goo can create a black hole, why do they have so much of it on the spinney ship?
The Romulans show up, blow up the fleet, and then... wait 20 years. What are they doing for those 20-odd years?
"Enlist in Starfleet." Um, that would be "Join and be a jr crewman". "Enroll in the Starfleet Academy" would have been what Kirk needed to do to become an officer, and get his own ship within 5 years.
The car scene--totally pointless. Actually, I have heard a back-story explaining that scene, which was pretty neat, but since it isn't in the movie, it has to be at best EU. As such, the only reason for including it in the movie is that it was in the trailer. It does nothing to advance the plot.
Why do the academy crews take off in shuttles? Aren't the transporters working? Transporters can move 6-12 people at a time every minute or so, and there are 4 transporter rooms aboard the TOS enterprise. Seems to me they could really speed up that boarding process.
There is a really funny editing glitch in the fight onboard the romulan ship. Kirk jumps. Misses. Lands next to a phaser. Gets up. Fights. Gets his phaser knocked out of his hand. Falls again. Lands on the catwalk--no phaser! gets up. Continues the fight.
Then there's the huge long pipe to the drill-head beam. That didn't make any sense at all. Why not just phaser the cable? Oh, it is shielded? then how are people in thruster suits supposed to get onto it?
"Fencing." Fencing? Really. Since when does fencing involve a collapsible katana? "Kendo" or "Kenbutsu" would be the correct answer if you are going that route.
And that's what I remember off the top of my head.

So the whole thing about this being a reboot? No. If they had left out time travel entirely, and made the enemy be just the romulans testing out 2 new devices (cloak & plasma torpedo), which were defeated when Kirk Sr self-destructed to take out the mysterious attacker, that would have made more sense. Why the 20 year delay? Romulan high-command wasn't sure what happened, and decided to abandon the project. Then there was a change, and the Romulans decided to start building a fleet. Still want Nimoy in the movie? Let him be Sarek, or a member of the Vulcan Science Academy. Or a Romulan. Just anything else. (sure, there would be fans saying WTF, but it would have been better)

Trek always had flirting and kissing, but it was largely cute, relatively harmless (due to TV restrictions of the era). Not hot panting bodies covered in a shine of sweat. And it may have been intended as a joke, but the joke fell flat.

Trek has never been really good about time travel (except Guardian at the Gates of Forever), and really should stop. A completely alternate timeline would have been a better route to go, rather than the half-a##ed path of JJATrek.

Trek 4 was popular, but it was way too kitchy. They just wanted to make a funny movie, but the humor was way too dated (even when it came out), and it just wasn't going didn't work (for me). All you need from that movie is the first 10 minutes (where they agree to return home to face trial) and the last 10 (when the face trial, get the verdict, and the new ship).
Trek 5 was an abomination. Mainly because the studio kept insisting that they make the movie funnier, because that was what they perceived people liking about 4.

 

[Dannager]

OK, you asked for it.
First off, the grandfather paradox. The Romulans go back in time, and radically alter the time line. Right off the bat, there's a problem. Even if they don't kill the people they believe to be key players in their situation, they alter the people by causing a cascading wave of other situations which either won't occur or will occur in such a radically different way that the other people won't be the same people--their fundamental experiences of life will be totally different.

This is not a plot hole. This is how alternate-timeline-time-travel works in fiction. No one thinks this is a plot hole, except you. Why do you think it's a plot hole?

 

[Mallus]

OK, you asked for it.

Right back at ya'.

Even if they don't kill the people they believe to be key players in their situation, they alter the people by causing a cascading wave of other situations which either won't occur or will occur in such a radically different way that the other people won't be the same people--their fundamental experiences of life will be totally different. MAJOR PLOT HOLE.

That isn't how time travel works in science fiction, or, rather, it's one of the ways it works. Either everything is radically different (cf. Bradbury's The Sounds of Thunder), or things are only slightly different, and the differences exist for dramatic effect related to the story at hand (cf. Back to the Future).

Romulus is destroyed by an explosion at the center of the Galaxy. <blink></blink>(blink)At. The. Center. of the. GALAXY???? (blink) Think about that for a bit.

This is dumb. However, in the Star Trek universe, the Milky Way is surrounded by an energy barrier that turns some people into gods and giant-ass bacteria live in interstellar space. So I'm willing to cut them some slack, science-wise.

Future Spock comes back to do what? By the time he leaves, it would be a differnt future Spock.

Alternate timeline paradox. Par for the course.

The Romulans show up, blow up the fleet, and then... wait 20 years.

The order of events is: Nero & Romulan super-ship accidentally travel back in time --> blow up Kirk's dad's ship --> wait around for future-Spock to arrive (time travel was accidental -- he arrives 20 years later), Nero captures future Spock, maroons him on ice planet with good view of Vulcan --> Nero travels to Vulcan, blows up Federation fleet --> Nero implodes Vulcan.

The car scene--totally pointless.

I thought is was kinda brilliant. It's the *last* thing you'd expect to see in a Trek film; delinquent young Kirk stealing his stepfathers' muscle car while the Beastie Boys blare in the background. Tonally, it's marvelous and unsettling (this ain't the Trek of yore). It also serves to characterize Kirk -- he's still brash and daring, but, in the absence of his father, troubled rather than the good student aimed at the Academy.

Like I said, a brilliant (and efficient) scene.

Why do the academy crews take off in shuttles?

Because the line of shuttles arcing into the air over future San Francisco looked nice. Film is a visual medium.

"Fencing." Fencing? Really. Since when does fencing involve a collapsible katana? "Kendo" or "Kenbutsu" would be the correct answer if you are going that route.

23rd century fencing includes collapsible katanae.

Trek always had flirting and kissing, but it was largely cute, relatively harmless (due to TV restrictions of the era).

Harry Mudd is introduced trying to sell space-hookers to space-miners. Kirk and Co. periodically relax by watching half-naked Orion slave girls.

edit: the scene with the Orion woman in Trek 2009 is actually cuter and more harmless. She's not a coerced sex worker or asylum inmate. She's not described as subhuman ("They're like animals: vicious, seductive" from TOS: The Menagerie)

She's a Starfleet Academy student making out with Kirk on a date.

Trek has never been really good about time travel (except Guardian at the Gates of Forever), and really should stop.

I am now forced to question your Trek bona fides. It's "City on the Edge of Forever". Written by Harlan Ellison.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Why is it a plot hole? um, you do know what a paradox is, right? By invalidating their reason for traveling in time by changing the past, they don't have a reason to travel back in time.
If you change it, it catches up to you. Marty McFly started to fade away, because he had never been born.
Yeah, it bothered me. And almost everyone I talked to (vocal visual&communication within proximity to another person) about the movie. And a lot of people who have seen more than 5 or 6 Doctor Who episodes. Even Trek itself has sometimes (inconsistently) gone to lengths to make sure they didn't change the past when time travelling.
I'm willing to accept the sloppy use of "Solar System" for every planetary system, but saying that a star at the center of the galaxy destroys Romulus, but somehow is not a problem for the entire rest of the galaxy, no. Sorry. No. Don't buy it. If the Romulan home star went supernova, that might make sense. Some star way at the center of the galaxy? No. Not even close. And why is it always Romulus? What about the rest of the Romulan Empire? Don't they have thousands of colony worlds, just like the Federation and Klingons?
Accident? No, pretty sure the Romulans went back in time deliberately.
All it does is establish that Kid Kirk is a worthless spoiled brat, something that was established just as well when Pike went to get him after the bar fight, when he's a worthless, directionless, spoiled brat. The backstory where he was trying to take pressure off his 1/2 brother's back and stick it to his step-father made that scene worthwhile. Without it... A lot of the 7th-doctor stories involve concepts where the key scenes are on the cutting room floor, so what remains is a garbled mess. That's what this scene is like to me.
Nope. Still shouldn't happen. Future Spock should still fade away--his "past" has essentially been erased by the completely different path his life took.
Yes! Film is a visual medium. Which means I want to actually be able to SEE the frickin' ships! What does the romulan mining ship look like? It has lots of spikey bits, and that mining arm, but what does it look like? We don't get to SEE it. And the action sequences flooded with Skakey-cam. If you make the audience nauseous, how does that help them SEE?
Plural of Katana is still Katana. Japanese root word. Fencing is Fencing. Kendo is Kendo. These are separate martial arts/sports.
Even the most baudy of the Orion Slave Girl scenes was barely past the cutesy Harem-girl wanna-be Dream of Genie belly-dancing. Sure, there were inuendos. JJATrek seemed more like a skank.

Oh, I'm sorry. I mentioned the computer/machine instead of the title of the episode. Obviously all my comments and arguments are flawed beyond redemption. I should just go and curl up in a hole somewhere. Thank you for pointing that out.
/sarchasm.

 

[Morrus]

Yes! Film is a visual medium. Which means I want to actually be able to SEE the frickin' ships! What does the romulan mining ship look like? It has lots of spikey bits, and that mining arm, but what does it look like? We don't get to SEE it.

Feel better now?

Obviously all my comments and arguments are flawed beyond redemption. I should just go and curl up in a hole somewhere. Thank you for pointing that out.
/sarchasm.

No, your delivery is flawed beyond redemption. Sabrina, you need to start addressing your tone of sarcasm before it becomes a problem. As a hint, if you're actually labeling your posts "/sarcasm", there's a problem.

 

[Dannager]

Why is it a plot hole? um, you do know what a paradox is, right? By invalidating their reason for traveling in time by changing the past, they don't have a reason to travel back in time.
If you change it, it catches up to you. Marty McFly started to fade away, because he had never been born.

That's because Back to the Future employed single-timeline time travel. There was only one timeline, and whether you moved forward or backward you had to deal with any changes made to it.

Star Trek does not use single-timeline time travel. It uses alternate timelines/parallel universes. When Spock and the Romulans traveled through the time wormhole, they emerged in an alternate timeline identical to their own. They then changed that alternate timeline by virtue of simply being there (and also by blowing up George Kirk's ship). There were no effects on Original Spock or the Romulans because they weren't changing their own timeline; they were altering a new one.

Spock explains this explicitly at one point during the movie. It's pretty run-of-the-mill sci-fi stuff, and Star Trek certainly isn't the first sci-fi series to employ it. Heck, it's not even the first time Star Trek has employed it (The Original Series, Deep Space 9, and Enterprise have all featured storylines involving an alternate timeline/parallel universe).

From Wikipedia's entry on parallel universes:

The current Star Trek films are set in an alternate universe created by the film's villan traveling back in time, this allowed J. J. Abrams to reboot the Star Trek franchise without affecting the continuity of any other Star Trek film or show.

The question, then, is why don't you know this? It's curious that you were paying such close attention that you're able to catalogue endless plot holes (or what you imagine to be plot holes) but missed the completely cogent explanation for the one you identify as the biggest.

 

[Morrus]

Did you watch BC in The Last Enemy? My wife and I caught the first episode on a Netflix and weren't too impressed. Does it get better? I hope so, 'cause I really like Cumberbatch (and Francis Begbie, err, Robert Carlyle... who doesn't have a speaking role in ep. 1)

I've not heard of it; sorry!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I forget, is this an even sequel, or an odd sequel?

Also, I still have trouble parsing the title. Should I be reading it as [Star Trek] [Into Darkness] or [Star Trek into Darkness]?

I'll grant that I agree in any case with the criticism of just using any time-travel concept in the Star Trek reboot. Time games have become too cliche in Star Trek in my opinion; I think the tone of the new series would have been better off had they not opened with ZOMG ZANY! They could always have come back to a time travel episode later.

Agreed on anticipation of BC, though. Love him in Sherlock, looking for a return of that series, and eagerly anticipating his appearance as Smaug in the next (or next-next) Hobbit.