Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

[Franklin]

I agree with BillJ's post, except for one thing. The Spock scream bothers me, and I just realized why.

The build up of the reversed-parallel scene was almost right.

I think it would have worked better if Spock let the tension build in his face exactly like Shatner did in TWOK. But instead of the scream, he should have remained silent and then went on to beat the batcrap out of Khan. After his speech about choosing not to feel, releasing all the pent up emotion at that moment seemed a little soon.

Saving the outburst for later would have made it perfect.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, mirroring Shatner's "collapse" on his side of the wall would have been better. Then the Khan ass-whooping.

I could go with your edit, but I didn't really have a problem with the scream because I saw it as Spock finally giving in to the emotion and lashing out like a primal scream (his mom, his planet, and now the person Spock Prime told him would be an important part of his life, and with whom he'd do great things, is struck down prematurely). So in context, it worked for me. But it's fair to say it suffered (and maybe was cheapened) a bit for some by being identified with the Kirk scream, especially since that scream has become something of a joke over time.

Also, remember, at the time Spock didn't know if Khan was alive or dead. That is, he didn't know there was an ass to whip, yet.

 

[Ovation]

^Yes what I love about that is it brings home that okay, Spock and Uhura are having a fight but you know is not going to be left out of any commentary on Spock? Kirk

Scenes like that are legion in movies. Police stakeouts, soldiers on transports on their way to or from battle, people at business meetings, in scenes of diplomacy. They're not always a "relationship moment", but they are subjects that one would consider unlikely or inappropriate based on the larger premise of the scene in question. I guess Trek is special in that it's supposed to rise above such things? Please.

You know when such "inappropriate" moments also happen? In real life. I've seen (or participated) in a few during meetings that were supposed to be "all business". One of my best friends spent 10 years in the military and has told me more than one story that mirrors that scene--and they took place "in transit" before deploying on dangerous assignments. I've witnessed such moments at funerals.

The fact the discussion is "inappropriate" to the circumstances is not a mistake--it's the main point. Such moments occur in "inappropriate" times and places rather routinely. The difference is, in real life, the dialogue is rarely as clever.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Why are you quoting me Ovation? I never said it was inappropriate, I was saying what I liked about the scene.

 

[Franklin]

^Yes what I love about that is it brings home that okay, Spock and Uhura are having a fight but you know is not going to be left out of any commentary on Spock? Kirk

Scenes like that are legion in movies. Police stakeouts, soldiers on transports on their way to or from battle, people at business meetings, in scenes of diplomacy. They're not always a "relationship moment", but they are subjects that one would consider unlikely or inappropriate based on the larger premise of the scene in question. I guess Trek is special in that it's supposed to rise above such things? Please.

You know when such "inappropriate" moments also happen? In real life. I've seen (or participated) in a few during meetings that were supposed to be "all business". One of my best friends spent 10 years in the military and has told me more than one story that mirrors that scene--and they took place "in transit" before deploying on dangerous assignments. I've witnessed such moments at funerals.

The fact the discussion is "inappropriate" to the circumstances is not a mistake--it's the main point. Such moments occur in "inappropriate" times and places rather routinely. The difference is, in real life, the dialogue is rarely as clever.

Good points. These "inappropriate" moments often occur in moments of stress, when emotions and senses are heightened, and people are uncomfortable or on edge.

It just occurred to me, think of poor Cupcake and the other guy having to listen to all that. Think they felt uncomfortable and a bit embarrassed about it? That's part of it, too. When something like that breaks out, the primaries involved don't give a rat's ass who hears it. That's real life.

Edited to add: since I used your quote, too, teacake, I thought I'd let you know that as I read it, I did figure you liked the scene. You point out Kirk was in the middle of it, he couldn't stop it, so he finally thought, "what the hell," and he gives his two cents worth as long as everyone's opening up. I liked that, too.

 

[Amaris]

^Yes what I love about that is it brings home that okay, Spock and Uhura are having a fight but you know is not going to be left out of any commentary on Spock? Kirk

Oh, I know. That's what I love about it.
Kirk can't stay quiet for long, it's just not in him.

 

[BillJ]

Hats off to everyone (pro or con) for keeping this thread civil so far!

 

[Amaris]

Hats off to everyone (pro or con) for keeping this thread civil so far!

Are you saying something bad about hats? What is it about hats that you don't want them on our heads? I can't believe you'd be so shallow as to mock people for their headwear?!

I can't take this baseless bigotry anymore!

[/slams door]

 

[urbandefault]

I agree with BillJ's post, except for one thing. The Spock scream bothers me, and I just realized why.

The build up of the reversed-parallel scene was almost right.

I think it would have worked better if Spock let the tension build in his face exactly like Shatner did in TWOK. But instead of the scream, he should have remained silent and then went on to beat the batcrap out of Khan. After his speech about choosing not to feel, releasing all the pent up emotion at that moment seemed a little soon.

Saving the outburst for later would have made it perfect.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, mirroring Shatner's "collapse" on his side of the wall would have been better. Then the Khan ass-whooping.

I could go with your edit, but I didn't really have a problem with the scream because I saw it as Spock finally giving in to the emotion and lashing out like a primal scream (his mom, his planet, and now the person Spock Prime told him would be an important part of his life, and with whom he'd do great things, is struck down prematurely). So in context, it worked for me. But it's fair to say it suffered (and maybe was cheapened) a bit for some by being identified with the Kirk scream, especially since that scream has become something of a joke over time.

Also, remember, at the time Spock didn't know if Khan was alive or dead. That is, he didn't know there was an ass to whip, yet.

I can see that, but the collapse would have let the intensity build to the violent release when Spock caught up with Khan.

Holding all of that back, waiting for the fight, would have been a much bigger payoff.

 

[Ovation]

Why are you quoting me Ovation? I never said it was inappropriate, I was saying what I liked about the scene.

I was agreeing with you and J. Allen. Just adding my observation that I find complaints about the scene as being "inappropriate" were off the mark. I guess I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be (a bit of that going around this week--hazards of typing while coping with an 8 year old boy). Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I'm still dumbfounded that anyone can claim with a straight face that JJ Abrams captures the essence of TOS. TOS was never a big, loud, brainless action series revolving around explosions and flashing lights and loud noises. Saying JJ captures the essence of TOS is like saying Stephenie Meyer's Twilight captured the essence of Jane Austen's Persuasion. It's just absurd on its face.

No one forced you to come into this thread. For me, I love the films and what they bring to the table.

This is a discussion forum meant for the exchange of ideas. If you do not want an exchange of ideas, do not start threads or make posts on this forum.

I'm still dumbfounded that anyone can claim with a straight face that JJ Abrams captures the essence of TOS. TOS was never a big, loud, brainless action series revolving around explosions and flashing lights and loud noises. Saying JJ captures the essence of TOS is like saying Stephenie Meyer's Twilight captured the essence of Jane Austen's Persuasion. It's just absurd on its face.

TOS featured all the explosions, flashing lights, and loud noises it could afford. If Roddenberry's budget had allowed it, there would've been even more.

As far as the action being brainless goes, . ST09 and STID were as deep in characterization and issues and plot as any good TOS episode was. TOS was not high drama, after all. It wasn't cerebral, either.

Capturing the essence of TOS to me means capturing the essence of the characters, whatever situations they're in. For the one thousandth time, in my opinion, I believe Abrams and his cohorts got them down perfectly.

I guess the principle problem is that TOS, for all its camp and ham, at least endeavoured to have something to say about the world, and it was as much about exploring the human condition as it was about space adventure. JJ Abrams, on the other hand, has nothing to say about the world, and restricts himself to mindless action. TOS was cerebral, at least compared to what JJ Abrams has served.

 

[BillJ]

TOS was cerebral, at least compared to what JJ Abrams has served.

You keep telling yourself that. I was four-years old when I started watching TOS and had no issues following it.

This is a discussion forum meant for the exchange of ideas. If you do not want an exchange of ideas, do not start threads or make posts on this forum.

"They are having a positive discussion, let me come in and take a shit." I'll never understand the mindset.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I think you need to calm down. Not everyone who expresses a viewpoint that is different from yours is trying to "take a shit" on the discussion.

 

[BillJ]

I think you need to calm down. Not everyone who expresses a viewpoint that is different from yours is trying to "take a shit" on the discussion.

When one is talking down to people...

I'm still dumbfounded that anyone can claim with a straight face that JJ Abrams captures the essence of TOS. TOS was never a big, loud, brainless action series revolving around explosions and flashing lights and loud noises. Saying JJ captures the essence of TOS is like saying Stephenie Meyer's Twilight captured the essence of Jane Austen's Persuasion. It's just absurd on its face.

...they tend to get that reaction from me.

There's thirty other threads about Star Trek Into Darkness for people to talk down to others in.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I wasn't talking down to anyone, I was expressing an opinion. If you wanted your thread to consist entirely of people lavishing their praise on your beloved movie, then you should have made that clear in the original post. In fact, if you want to avoid encountering dissenting opinions that might "take a shit" on the discussion, then I suggest you avoid the internet entirely.

 

[BillJ]

If you wanted your thread to consist entirely of people lavishing their praise on your beloved movie, then you should have made that clear in the original post.

"A thread titled "Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness"? Obviously, I need to go in and tell everyone that I hate it for the umpteenth time. Just in case someone forgot I hated it!"

It's like a fucking compulsion for some people.

Sometimes it is simply nice to have a positive thread.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I wasn't talking down to anyone, I was expressing an opinion. If you wanted your thread to consist entirely of people lavishing their praise on your beloved movie, then you should have made that clear in the original post. In fact, if you want to avoid encountering dissenting opinions that might "take a shit" on the discussion, then I suggest you avoid the internet entirely.

The thread title and OP are pretty clear. As BillJ mentioned, there are plenty of other threads to be negative about the film.

STID did have "something to say about the world". It touched on family, loyalty, duty, ideals and friendship. It also touch on the topics of terrorism, government secrecy and political manipulation.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I wasn't talking down to anyone, I was expressing an opinion. If you wanted your thread to consist entirely of people lavishing their praise on your beloved movie, then you should have made that clear in the original post. In fact, if you want to avoid encountering dissenting opinions that might "take a shit" on the discussion, then I suggest you avoid the internet entirely.

The thread title and OP are pretty clear. As BillJ mentioned, there are plenty of other threads to be negative about the film.

STID did have "something to say about the world". It touched on family, loyalty, duty, ideals and friendship. It also touch on the topics of terrorism, government secrecy and political manipulation.

Agreed, I will credit Into Darkness for at least trying to have a message, where Star Trek 2009 didn't even try and was content to be a mindless action-adventure flick. I maintain, though, that its message was lost amidst incessant and overblown action sequences and generally poor storytelling and scriptwriting.

 

[BillJ]

STID did have "something to say about the world". It touched on family, loyalty, duty, ideals and friendship. It also touch on the topics of terrorism, government secrecy and political manipulation.

I guess it doesn't count unless it is a long-winded speech by Picard about how it is best to allow a primitive society to perish?

 

[BillJ]

Agreed, I will credit Into Darkness for at least trying to have a message, where Star Trek 2009 didn't even try and was content to be a mindless action-adventure flick. I maintain, though, that its message was lost amidst incessant and overblown action sequences and generally poor storytelling and scriptwriting.

Obviously not, since it doesn't seem like too many people had an issue picking up on it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I wasn't talking down to anyone, I was expressing an opinion. If you wanted your thread to consist entirely of people lavishing their praise on your beloved movie, then you should have made that clear in the original post. In fact, if you want to avoid encountering dissenting opinions that might "take a shit" on the discussion, then I suggest you avoid the internet entirely.

The thread title and OP are pretty clear. As BillJ mentioned, there are plenty of other threads to be negative about the film.

STID did have "something to say about the world". It touched on family, loyalty, duty, ideals and friendship. It also touch on the topics of terrorism, government secrecy and political manipulation.

Agreed, I will credit Into Darkness for at least trying to have a message, where Star Trek 2009 didn't even try and was content to be a mindless action-adventure flick. I maintain, though, that its message was lost amidst incessant and overblown action sequences and generally poor storytelling and scriptwriting.

I managed to catch it with out any problems.

ST09 was about one's "first, best destiny" and about finding one's place in the world.