Hatrack River Writers Workshop Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Discussing Published Hooks & Books » Into Darkness; Star Trek

   
Author Topic: Into Darkness; Star Trek
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very, very well done. This movie kept me riveted from beginning to end, making me not want to miss the smallest detail, after seeing it last Sunday. I feel this sequel more than surpassed the first movie with this cast and has left me wanting to see more.

And for those faithful to the original cast; much of what made Star Trek great in the early days is still there. If it wasn't I would not ever go see another one with these younger actors, and they have left me eagerly looking forward to their next movie.

Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
History
Member
Member # 9213

 - posted      Profile for History   Email History         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I enjoyed the cinematic extravagance of the movie, the "reimagining" of previous Star Trek movie plot elements elicited less a pleasant nostalgia and more a disappointment that the story was rehashing rather than innovating. This was so blatant at times, I found the storyline hokey, predictable, and less engaging. The rehashing brought me out of the moment by inherently making recall and compare with the earlier "original series" Star Trek movies.

Thus while Star Trek: Into Darkness was fun, it also seemed to poke fun, reveling in its "in-jokes" with fans. I believe the film would be more entertaining to those who have never seen the original Star Trek movies and can experience the current film in complete ignorance of the retelling of the old movie plot lines.

I almost had to chuckle at the end of the film where in a stilted speech we hear yet again, "...where no one has gone before." This film is too much a redo of what has gone before.

Respectfully,
Dr. Bob

Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
redux
Member
Member # 9277

 - posted      Profile for redux   Email redux         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I refuse to watch "Into Darkness" on the sole premise that the Enterprise is not a submarine. It might seem petty, but submerging the Enterprise in the ocean simply demands far too much suspension of disbelief for my poor brain to handle.
Posts: 525 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
I refuse to watch "Into Darkness" on the sole premise that the Enterprise is not a submarine. It might seem petty, but submerging the Enterprise in the ocean simply demands far too much suspension of disbelief for my poor brain to handle.

I will have to agree. I always thought the Enterprise was strictly a space vehicle incapable of landing on any planet whether in the ocean or on land.

But I still thoroughly enjoyed this movie and like how it tied into what had happened in the original timeline. It just seems right that the Enterprise crew will still run into the same adversaries that remain untouched from Nero's interference.

I liked the "in" jokes too. That touch of humor is what made Star Trek so special in the first place. I thought the beginning scene was what I'd term Classic Trek. Maybe I'm too nostalgic (and showing my age) but this was served up just right in my opinion.

Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
redux
Member
Member # 9277

 - posted      Profile for redux   Email redux         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I'm just bitter that J.J. Abrams turned Trek into science fantasy [Smile]

Edited to add: In other words, never mind me [Smile]

Posts: 525 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KellyTharp
Member
Member # 9997

 - posted      Profile for KellyTharp   Email KellyTharp         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I can remember when William Shatner had real hair, and I attended the 40th anniversary of Star Trek in Seattle, I can attest to this second movie playing with old story lines. That said, I loved how J.J. is now "tweeking" old story lines and playing such insider funnies as, "Will you stop with the metaphors!" The new cast is starting to firm up and are fun to watch. This Spock is also turning out to be very interesting. Now, it would be nice to have some new story line put in, though I do need to know how they got Harry Mudd's ship on board . . . giggle.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
History
Member
Member # 9213

 - posted      Profile for History   Email History         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. I would be curious to see which actor would be chosen to play Harcourt Fenton Mudd; although I don't see the maturity yet in Chris Pine's Kirk to match Shatner's worldly humor in outfoxing Mudd in the original series.
Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
I think I'm just bitter that J.J. Abrams turned Trek into science fantasy [Smile]

Edited to add: In other words, never mind me [Smile]

Now wait a minute. You don't think a space (star) ship can survive being submerged in water? Or am I misreading you? Because it seems to me that traveling the vastness of outer space would take more precautions than traveling under water on a planet.

But if you mean a ship the size of the Enterprise hiding in an ocean is stretching the reality factor to be more like fantasy than believability, then I totally agree.

Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by History:
Yes. I would be curious to see which actor would be chosen to play Harcourt Fenton Mudd; although I don't see the maturity yet in Chris Pine's Kirk to match Shatner's worldly humor in outfoxing Mudd in the original series.

I feel we're seeing an earlier Kirk lacking experience still to come to reach the point of Shatner's Kirk. I'm sure the next movie will bring out more maturity and catch up with the Kirk we old timers are more familiar with. At least, I hope so. But who knows? This is a completely different timeline from the original we're all familiar with. Anything is possible... and so far, I like it.
Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I recall right, it was said the Enterprise could land...it just didn't. (Because of the expense of special effects, actually.)
Posts: 8727 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
History
Member
Member # 9213

 - posted      Profile for History   Email History         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Voyager landed multiple times in its series.
Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
redux
Member
Member # 9277

 - posted      Profile for redux   Email redux         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crystal Stevens:
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
I think I'm just bitter that J.J. Abrams turned Trek into science fantasy [Smile]

Edited to add: In other words, never mind me [Smile]

Now wait a minute. You don't think a space (star) ship can survive being submerged in water? Or am I misreading you? Because it seems to me that traveling the vastness of outer space would take more precautions than traveling under water on a planet.

But if you mean a ship the size of the Enterprise hiding in an ocean is stretching the reality factor to be more like fantasy than believability, then I totally agree.

Well sort of. I know it's essentially "crazy talk," but I can accept as plausible only some things in sci-fi and many things in science fantasy.

My understanding is that in outer space pressure is pretty much negligible as opposed to being submerged in water. I guess the Enterprise never reached crush depths. By having the Enterprise behave like both a spaceship and submarine, I am being asked to believe too much. In other words, I can relinquish only so much suspension of disbelief.

Edited to add this link: http://badassdigest.com/2012/12/11/a-scientist-explains-why-the-enterprise-cant-go-underwater/

I guess I'm not the only one [Smile]

Posts: 525 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
redux
Member
Member # 9277

 - posted      Profile for redux   Email redux         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wanted to add that for me, when it comes to suspension of disbelief, it is like a rubber band. The fantasy rubber band is a lot more elastic than the sci-fi one, so the more I am asked to stretch the latter, the likelier it is to break.
Posts: 525 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KellyTharp
Member
Member # 9997

 - posted      Profile for KellyTharp   Email KellyTharp         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The big question I had about the parking in water scene is it really doesn't make sense when they can park in orbit and beam down. I think it was just one of those gratuitous pretty special effects that someone wanted in no matter the logical reason for it. That said, it was pretty cool seeing the Enterprise rise up out of an ocean, in spite of the fact it made no sense. Neither does Uhura kissing Spock in every other scene, but we get to see that, Dr. Marcus in her underwear for no reason(well other than for those in the audience with higher levels of testosterone) . . . I could go on, but won't. Stepping off soap box now.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's said, too, that a lot of people thought the "Star Trek" universe got kinda hidebound by its continuity, and that J. J. Abrams was brought in to blow that away and bring it back to what mattered.

Ah, well...as I've said before, I lost interest after "First Contact" and, after that, amused myself with occasionally watching the Original Series (on Blu-Ray) with a dip here and there elsewhere.

You guys do tempt me, though...

Posts: 8727 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never thought about the water pressure problem and believe you are right, Redux. That would make a big difference.

I also agree about staying in orbit and beaming down. After all, Kirk and Bones beamed up when they were chased by the primitive locals. Does make you wonder. I'm trying to remember if they gave any reason for that? I don't think they did.

Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Same reason they didn't land the ship in the Original Series---the effects busted the budget.
Posts: 8727 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JSchuler
Member
Member # 8970

 - posted      Profile for JSchuler   Email JSchuler         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My understanding is that in outer space pressure is pretty much negligible as opposed to being submerged in water.
Except the Enterprise travels faster than light, which is going to increase the pressure the near-vacuum of space applies to the ship to match and possibly exceed deep oceanic pressures, if only when it enters/exits warp speed

(fun fact: warp travel should also result in a massive gamma-ray burst when the ship exits--think how blue-shifting should apply to something traveling FTL--likely killing all life on nearby planets: Vulcan should have been fried by Starfleet arriving in orbit in the first movie, no futuristic Romulan mining ship needed)

Posts: 388 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the things my husband and I enjoyed about watching the later STAR TREK series episodes (and which drove our kids crazy) was laughing at the poor science.

STAR TREK has always been science fantasy.

ALWAYS

Posts: 8541 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
redux
Member
Member # 9277

 - posted      Profile for redux   Email redux         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To me, science-fiction and science-fantasy are both under the larger and more general fantasy label. My distinction is that I demand a stricter adherence to rules and explanations for science-fiction and than I do for science-fantasy.

And JSchuler, I appreciate your explanation, but like I said, I wasn't suggesting that the Enterprise couldn't be both a submarine and a starship. It's just that when all it does in its previous movie incarnation (the 2009 movie) is be a starship and then suddenly it's a submarine, that's when the rubber band of suspension of disbelief starts to get stretched. I suppose when it was built in atmosphere in the reboot all bets were off and I'm just a nitpicker [Smile]

Posts: 525 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wise
Member
Member # 9779

 - posted      Profile for wise   Email wise         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree heartily with Dr. Bob. Where's the originality? I enjoyed seeing the classic ST characters again and was thoroughly entertained, but all the writers could think of was a rehash of Khan? Did they really think they could replace Ricardo Montalban? Puleeze. At least Scotty came through and saved the day once again. Parallel universe or not, I sure hope they don't spin the roulette wheel of TV episodes in order to write the plot of the next movie.

I still cringe at the thought of a love affair between Uhuru and Spock with no logical (or otherwise) reason for it. The Enterprise under water I can swallow, but Uhuru and Spock kissing on the transporter pad? Yikes!

Posts: 95 | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2