The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > If JJ's sequel is about "KHAN", will it…
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Will JJ's KHAN be as good as the original or better?
I think it will be as good as the original 8 80.00%
I think it will be better than the original 2 20.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 06-15-2012, 10:11 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I watch shows and play a certain level of video games too.
I actively reject too much violence. I play Mass Effect. I was shocked when the writers of the game chose the name "MASS EFFECT" I figured it was a fluke. One would have to understand the nature of the universe to come up with that name.

The game also explained many things scientifically to an audience that otherwise wouldn't have NEVER thought to look up what a Bose-Einstien Condensate was. It added a lot of ...speculation and magic matter just like Star Trek 09 did but it explained adequately the entire concepts that made up this universe while teaching use about the Galaxy a little physics and told a really good story that was extremely entertaining.

Star Trek used to do this...
But it's had a lot more problems than that in the last 10 years So Abrams picks up one side of Trek ...the action and the adventure but doesn't do anything but lip service to the intellectual stimulating that Star Trek has been known for (dare I say) or at least why I tuned in weekly.

-----

Entertainment baby sitters are likely a high contributing factor to problems like Hyper activity syndromes like ADD and AHD. That whole leaving kids alone trend in hot cars at home is behind some of the more unfortunate crimes like molestation or even others not covered by law but pose there own unique problems emotionally.

I don't want to absolutely shoot down "mindless entertainment." I do a little my self...very little. Yet I understand how much a release it can be from daily stress to get lost in something for a little while. I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't understand it or absolute despise it.

But Trek used to be special to me for those reason that it wasn't...at least not to me. I wish it could get back there.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-16-2012, 07:14 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
We cannot judge the Kelvin incident by current day standards though. Likely the protocols for dealing with deep-space, first contact scenarios, especially hostile ones, would probably be different in the far future
We really can't judge how Starfleet does anything in any time frame because of it's tendency to pick and choose when to 'seem' to resemble something contemporary and then when it goes off on it's own 'dramatic license' tangent and comes up with something totally different.

Like the oft-debated families on starships. It is a fictional universe and a fictional service at the end of the day.

Quote:
By the standards of protocol likely set forth in Trek's 23rd century timeline, Robau acted as correctly as he could.
Which, given how often Kirk got himself in trouble by going into situations unprepared would seem to be the case.

Which also ties into certain dramatic license elements I mentioned on another thread. If we take one of the BIG procedurally suspect conciets on Star Trek (the series) we have the most famous one of all.

That on an almost weekly basis the three most important and vital people on the ship beam down to planets and environments which have often not been fully surveyed or charted and then something goes amiss and either they or the ship find themselves in danger as a result. Actions they repeat on an alarmingly regular basis!

In no contemporary service or military (now or even as far as I can tell even in the 60s) that I can think of would such senior important officers ever be allowed anywhere near danger or risk in that manner right off the bat. There are people sent in to do that instead and they stay back on the ship where it's safe. But in the pursuit of licence viewers have accepted that it was perfectly normal for Kirk to get himself into a mess frequently because of that action!

Which at least was a situation that TNG fixed to a degree.

This is really nothing to do with any larger themes or ideas at play, but a symptom of the licence with which Star Trek (like almost every TV show and film to some level) has always operated on on a nuts and bolts plot structure level. Sadly I must be of the long term opinion that if we're looking for every plot or event in Star Trek to make sense.................well, I think we'll probably have invented Warp Drive for real before that happens.

It just comes down to what you can (or are) willing to suspend/accept in the pursuit of watching it all.

(And as a general aside, I don't think turning Robau into some sort of pre-emptive-super-soldier-come-suicide-bomber would have invested the film with any more sense either.)
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 06-16-2012 at 07:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-16-2012, 07:42 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

While looking at the nuts and bolts of Trek to show the consistent irregularities of the machine's function is telling and true. It's not justification for a lack of reason in this situation. All that really says is "In for an inch, in for a mile."

So the question becomes..
If you really regard it as a wholesale failure of logic. Then why defend it when someone points out a large break in the logic if you know the machine itself is a rather clunky use of tools that could rather easily produce a working machine, why go against the truth?

I have to believe it's because you like the movie.
That really should stop playing a part in critique threads. If every thread is going to primarily center on a subject and that subject is always predicated on your like or dislike of the movie then every thread is ultimately the same...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-16-2012, 07:49 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

It's not really defense. It's simply a point of view across the whole franchise that I've come to possess through twenty years of exposure to it. I like the franchise as a whole, but I see no reason to single out this film in respect of problems that are franchise wide. They afflict the whole, not just the last.

For example - were I to agree for the purposes of the example, that Robau acted in a completely stupid manner and I couldn't get past that stupidity (or any of the other supposed stupidity therewith)? Fine. I've decided I can't get past that and my enjoyment of the film suffers as a result.

What am I supposed to do then with every other stupid decision I think characters make the rest of the time? If I was taking the approach I just did with Robau then I would pretty much not be able to enjoy a lot of things so why would I even be watching it to start with?

Individually, I think people have to decide how they will approach these things. I think very simply for instance, yours and mine differs greatly.

If I allow myself to generally accept those circumstances in TOS and Star Trek as a whole..............well, let's just say that from my observation people who keep some who raise faults in respect of the last film tended to be those not overly impressed by it to begin with. And yet, it never seemed to be a problem before. So, I can only assume the disliking of the film plays a part from their perspective. Maybe I'm totally wrong.

But obviously we all do tend to single these things out sometimes. Some things do go beyond the ability for each of us to suspend disbelief enough. It does end up a bit repetitive because even acknowledging at times things in Trek that seem unreasonable it still doesn't always mean being unable to enjoy every film or TV episode.

If you want logic in everything that is onscreen, put simply you perhaps should not watch Star Trek. You're not going to find what you seem to prize doing so. And if something isn't giving you what you need..................
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 06-16-2012 at 10:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-16-2012, 11:15 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

You like the others have said a number of times that your enjoyment of films doesn't hinge on reality so it seems logical that when these things are pointed out you would either have little or nothing to say against the validity.
Yet this is never the case.

So far as long as I've been here my absolute prediction has been to point out and accepted an error in medium no matter if I enjoyed the film or disliked the film. My enjoyment is usually a combination of familiarity, writing skill, flare and an appreciation for the premise...for instance exploration vs. a medium on war and even then the criteria can get deeper with themes.

TWoK is a perfect example of a film I didn't like because the plot was WAY too simple...or so I thought when I was a kid. Since then people have explained the juxtaposed themes of life and death at play constantly in the film as well as the strategy that Meyers built into the story that are rather expressly revealed in the Teleplay that makes it clear that there was literally a POWER STRUGGLE between the two ship between main power and auxilary power and thus the reasons for how Meyrs designed the exchanges of fire all the way through the film. That's Fantastic stuff... I appreciate that. It makes the work mean more than just watching a laser fight between two slow moving ships.

Now when I realized TOO that they forgot that the Enterprise and Reliant chose to fight Billions of miles from Regula One and after their exchange neither had warp speed. Yet both made it back to the Planetoid. They don't mention times of course but it's an obvious miss.

Does that error reduce the theme?
Does Checkovs retcon reduce all work?
Does the visual errors and some of the scientific inaccuracies reduce that theme, the design of the writing and skill of the writing?

In my eyes it does. Minorly. Few if any films are perfect.
But the work still stands solidly on it's good points.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-16-2012, 11:35 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I can say that there are problems with 'Star Trek'. I can mean that about the Abrams film and I can say it about Star Trek as a whole.

You will not have everyone agree on what the problems are.

Recognising that there are problems is one thing. Having it reduce your enjoyment is another. Their validity or otherwise and that enjoyment are not directly related for most people. Talking about them is one thing. Putting them aside is much more individual. I suspect there are things you just won't allow yourself to set aside, whereas I can.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-16-2012, 12:30 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

I must agree with Kevin on this.
If we allow ourselves to be brought down in our entertainment because of supposed flaws in logic or reality, then we might as well not go see anything remotely ficticious, be it science, fantasy, criminal, or other.

That is why I am a strong proponent of "Logic and physics always give way to dramatic storytelling."

I was darn near moved to tears when George Kirk made his sacrifice so that his wife and son could escape death (something for which James T. would become notorious for....well...until he met Soran ).

If Captain Robau had not acted the way he did, then we would've been deprived of a truly great scene. Sure, Robau was likely a good captain, but we have no real vested interest in him, and in his short screen time, he hasn't given us much to be sympathetic about...save for his quick demise....but, that death served a purpose in the story.
If Robau had stayed aboard the ship, the only way he would've been even remotely given any sympathetic nod would be for him to have remained aboard to pilot the ship to its fiery end when the auto-pilot went out. But, still, the ending of that scene would not have been near as compelling. He could've said a few lines that may have further endeared us to his character, maybe even said something to George that would've been legacy bearing, and something for George to pass on to little Jimmy T., but still, even his sacrifice just wouldn't have fully registered with us on any lasting level.

Meet Commander (now Captain) George Kirk. Command was thrust upon him by Robau in an act of desperation. Kirk did not desire command...at least, not in this manner. You could see it in his face as Robau left the ship. (You could also see a look of regret, as if he was almost certain he was never going to see Robau again.) Already, that expression alone endears us to George Kirk. But, also, when we hear: "You're Captain, now, Mr. Kirk." something clicks in our minds. (OK...this guy is a Kirk....this must mean something good.) Name recognition, for good or ill, goes a LONG way.

We clearly see that Kirk loves his wife, and does his damnedest to get his wife, and soon to be born child off the ship. He was apparently even supposed to be able to get off duty (during what should've been peacetime) to be with his wife and newborn child at the time of the child's birth. Kirk does what a good captain does, and orders everyone off the bridge and to the escape pods. Seeing that he is indeed the last person moving for the turbolifts, Kirk turns around to activate the auto-pilot. The computer informs him that auto-pilot is off line. It is clear on his face that if he does NOT remain behind to manually pilot the ship in, no one will escape the wrathful barrage of torpedoes the Narada is unleashing. His wife and child, not to mention hundreds of others, wouldn't have a chance. So close! Dammit, so close to being able to be with his wife and child! So close to being able to share a common bond with his son, of a life and death experience that would be a part of their lives forever. However, he stays in constant contact with Wynona, his wife, to comfort her, and reassure her, at least long enough to ensure that she DOES get aboard the shuttle, and then ensure that the shuttle DOES take off, regardless that he is not there. Then, as the shuttle speeds away, and the Kelvin rockets toward fate with the Narada, we hear a baby crying, which jolts Kirk somewhat back to a more peaceful time. So endearing, and indeed so serving the purpose of dramatic storytelling is the brief little debate George and Wynona have over what to name their child. We see a tear form in George's eye as he desperately tells his wife that he loves her so much....he wants to tell her as many times as he can in those last seconds....and then, he is gone.

In the few short minutes, we come to know George Kirk really well. We don't want anything bad to happen to him. But he selflessly gives his life for his crew, and for his family, and we are moved by his sacrifice. It is a few minutes that is an emotional rollercoaster ride, which serves as a kickoff of the life of one James T. Kirk.

This is where dramatic storytelling serves its purpose. We are given characters to care about, even if it is for a brief time. Even if starship captains make the mostest stupidest (yes, I'm deliberately using bad English here) decisions in the history of the galaxies, it is our caring for these individuals (our nature as humans being) that allows us to enjoy this partiicular "what if" out of a list of what if's, and accept that what's done is done. Robau is gone. George Kirk is gone. Wynona and Jimmy T. live on. Life arises from tragedy and sacrifice. A new legend will be told. Even those who were not at all familiar with Trek were moved (some to tears) by these few minutes of establishment, because nobility resonates with humans being. And somehow, even the uninitiated know that this nobility will be borne along with James T. Kirk.
That is why dramatic storytelling works. It throws computerzed logic and physics out the window, and appeals to our human side...the side that tells us to enjoy what we have, and to relish what our fictional heroes may have, or regret what they have not, even as a result of some of the mostest stupidest decisions in the universe. Dramatic storytelling appeals to the human factor. We, as humans, are flawed. So who are we to judge the flaws of the ficticious?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-16-2012, 01:25 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
I must agree with Kevin on this.
If we allow ourselves to be brought down in our entertainment because of supposed flaws in logic or reality, then we might as well not go see anything remotely ficticious, be it science, fantasy, criminal, or other.

That is why I am a strong proponent of "Logic and physics always give way to dramatic storytelling."

I was darn near moved to tears when George Kirk made his sacrifice so that his wife and son could escape death (something for which James T. would become notorious for....well...until he met Soran ).

If Captain Robau had not acted the way he did, then we would've been deprived of a truly great scene. Sure, Robau was likely a good captain, but we have no real vested interest in him, and in his short screen time, he hasn't given us much to be sympathetic about...save for his quick demise....but, that death served a purpose in the story.
If Robau had stayed aboard the ship, the only way he would've been even remotely given any sympathetic nod would be for him to have remained aboard to pilot the ship to its fiery end when the auto-pilot went out. But, still, the ending of that scene would not have been near as compelling. He could've said a few lines that may have further endeared us to his character, maybe even said something to George that would've been legacy bearing, and something for George to pass on to little Jimmy T., but still, even his sacrifice just wouldn't have fully registered with us on any lasting level.

Meet Commander (now Captain) George Kirk. Command was thrust upon him by Robau in an act of desperation. Kirk did not desire command...at least, not in this manner. You could see it in his face as Robau left the ship. (You could also see a look of regret, as if he was almost certain he was never going to see Robau again.) Already, that expression alone endears us to George Kirk. But, also, when we hear: "You're Captain, now, Mr. Kirk." something clicks in our minds. (OK...this guy is a Kirk....this must mean something good.) Name recognition, for good or ill, goes a LONG way.

We clearly see that Kirk loves his wife, and does his damnedest to get his wife, and soon to be born child off the ship. He was apparently even supposed to be able to get off duty (during what should've been peacetime) to be with his wife and newborn child at the time of the child's birth. Kirk does what a good captain does, and orders everyone off the bridge and to the escape pods. Seeing that he is indeed the last person moving for the turbolifts, Kirk turns around to activate the auto-pilot. The computer informs him that auto-pilot is off line. It is clear on his face that if he does NOT remain behind to manually pilot the ship in, no one will escape the wrathful barrage of torpedoes the Narada is unleashing. His wife and child, not to mention hundreds of others, wouldn't have a chance. So close! Dammit, so close to being able to be with his wife and child! So close to being able to share a common bond with his son, of a life and death experience that would be a part of their lives forever. However, he stays in constant contact with Wynona, his wife, to comfort her, and reassure her, at least long enough to ensure that she DOES get aboard the shuttle, and then ensure that the shuttle DOES take off, regardless that he is not there. Then, as the shuttle speeds away, and the Kelvin rockets toward fate with the Narada, we hear a baby crying, which jolts Kirk somewhat back to a more peaceful time. So endearing, and indeed so serving the purpose of dramatic storytelling is the brief little debate George and Wynona have over what to name their child. We see a tear form in George's eye as he desperately tells his wife that he loves her so much....he wants to tell her as many times as he can in those last seconds....and then, he is gone.

In the few short minutes, we come to know George Kirk really well. We don't want anything bad to happen to him. But he selflessly gives his life for his crew, and for his family, and we are moved by his sacrifice. It is a few minutes that is an emotional rollercoaster ride, which serves as a kickoff of the life of one James T. Kirk.

This is where dramatic storytelling serves its purpose. We are given characters to care about, even if it is for a brief time. Even if starship captains make the mostest stupidest (yes, I'm deliberately using bad English here) decisions in the history of the galaxies, it is our caring for these individuals (our nature as humans being) that allows us to enjoy this partiicular "what if" out of a list of what if's, and accept that what's done is done. Robau is gone. George Kirk is gone. Wynona and Jimmy T. live on. Life arises from tragedy and sacrifice. A new legend will be told. Even those who were not at all familiar with Trek were moved (some to tears) by these few minutes of establishment, because nobility resonates with humans being. And somehow, even the uninitiated know that this nobility will be borne along with James T. Kirk.
That is why dramatic storytelling works. It throws computerzed logic and physics out the window, and appeals to our human side...the side that tells us to enjoy what we have, and to relish what our fictional heroes may have, or regret what they have not, even as a result of some of the mostest stupidest decisions in the universe. Dramatic storytelling appeals to the human factor. We, as humans, are flawed. So who are we to judge the flaws of the ficticious?
It depends on the genre of film or medium Throwing out physics makes sense for fantasy but not with Trek..nor other things that are more common sense. If Robau had simply sacrificed him self as well as strike a blow to the enemy...Eureka...the same scene just more realistic...more convincing, more powerful.

ou have your young GEORGE KIRK INSPIRED by his Captain's bravado and courage and determines himself to do the same. A speech would have been great too.

"We know our enemy. They are Romulan. We've beat them before but not this time. Regs say blow the ship and sacrifice all hands for the Federation. We've got one chance. I'm declaring the ship lost. All hands abandon ship...Mr. Kirk we're going to give them hell. Take the CONN, cover the shuttles. I'll give you your chance."

Just a minor modification in the scene gives real power to the sacrifice of the Captain and George Kirk. The scene comes to life just because a smarter sacrifice was made. Now the scene is credible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I can say that there are problems with 'Star Trek'. I can mean that about the Abrams film and I can say it about Star Trek as a whole.

You will not have everyone agree on what the problems are.

Recognising that there are problems is one thing. Having it reduce your enjoyment is another. Their validity or otherwise and that enjoyment are not directly related for most people. Talking about them is one thing. Putting them aside is much more individual. I suspect there are things you just won't allow yourself to set aside, whereas I can.
If the premise were not sci fiction...I could understand this.
If it were Avengers, Battleship, AVATAR, or MIB...sure...but if it's Star Trek, Dark Knight, Inception, Babylon 5, Aliens, Stargate...no passes. Too much tecnobable to much science...The premise has been established and I have to judge it based on that...and not how every other films Deus ex to resolve the plot.

It seems fair.
I know how you guys feel but I prefer to break the status quo on this one.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-16-2012, 01:38 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Those changes do not make the scene credible. They make it worse. Much worse. That speech is terrible. It's absolutely the sort of thing that has me rolling my eyes in anything but appreciation. I don't feel particularly roused by dialogue like that most of the time, I'm afraid.

George's acceptance of his fate and his sacrifice for the rest of the crew is much more subtly and effectively done by having us simply see the events unfold. Using the techniques of cinema and simply having the visuals played alongside an effective score and Chris Hemsworth's performance everything that emotionally needs conveyed and communicated about George's decision is done so minus any silly or clunky speeches.

Sometimes, movie scenes just don't need words.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 06-16-2012 at 02:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-16-2012, 01:50 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Must agree with Kevin. The Captain, and George Kirk making that sacrifice, steals too much thunder from Kirk and the dramatic sacrifice he makes. The story calls for Kirk's ultimate sacrifice. Kirk's and Kirk's alone. Yes, Robau bought time for his crew, and that was a noble sacrifice. But it wasn't the point of the scene. The point of the scene was to show George Kirk's ultimate sacrifice, and little Jimmy T's. start on his reputation for "dodging death's hand".

The argument you make for Robau is flawed. Robau was a character that wasn't really meant to be heartfeltedly (yes, I made up a word) cared about...George Kirk is the focus. He is the one the audience is meant to be drawn to, to achieve that emotional connection, the empathy and sympathy.

So, again, (and Star Trek be damned because it falls into the same category as any other work of fiction, regardless of "heady ideals", or any other fluff that one might associate with it. It is a work of fiction, and subject to the same needs for dramatic tension and purpose as any other), logic and physics yield to dramatic need. The purpose is to move the audience, not bore them with the hows and whys of one particular decision. (For that, we have Star Trek TNG's infamous "Captain's consultation sessions" before every decision Picard makes.)

Role Playing Games often fall into this style of narrative. The GameMaster (DungeonMaster) is the storyteller of the game. The players are both audience and actor. The GameMaster, as director of the narrative, must direct not only the story, but the attention of the audience to the narrative he intends to tell. The characters only have so much free will in an RPG. The GM must guide and direct its characters and audience back to the main narrative...even though the director can occasionally indulge the players' whims. And yes, GM's are often encouraged by the rule books to "fudge the rules" every now and then if it is necessary to keep the pace going, or to get the players back on the right track.

It is the same with movies, only less free. If the movies were to follow the free will of its audience, we would not have a conclusion at all....it would be chaos. No. The movies are told with a specific intent...to take the audience where the story is supposed to go. Sometimes that means fudging logic and physics...the rules...to pick up the pace or get the audience to where the movie is supposed to go.
__________________


Last edited by martok2112 : 06-16-2012 at 02:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:03 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.