Star Trek: All of Em

[Mari]

I finally watched Into Darkness last night.

I guess I'm in the minority of people that actually liked it? Or is it just Trekkies that hate the new stuff?

I liked it too, but I am probably considered a new Trekkie

[Vidocq]

You stumbled into a good point. I imagine that for anyone who does not know Trek history the two new movies were very good.

Yeah, I liked the first one but I didn't like Into The Darkness for a ton of nerdy reasons. It's good on it's own but not good as part of the film series (or at least the TOS movies, they are miles above the TNG movies.

[BeastieRunner]

You stumbled into a good point. I imagine that for anyone who does not know Trek history the two new movies were very good.

I grew up with a mom that could tell you what TOS episode it was with 10 seconds, what has already happened, and what's going to happen. Trek is not new to me BUT I'd take Star Wars over Trek any day. Maybe that's why I liked the new stuff because it was more like Star Wars and missing all the classic Trek elements. But I'm weird.

I liked the Khan switcharoo and was hoping they'd keep Kirk dead. Captain Spock would be fun. But this movie stuck me as they wanted to get Khan out of the way so they could move on with new and different mythos. It didn't feel rushed but it felt like Khan was not the intended antagonist till the third act.

I also noticed (or was immune to) a lack of lens flares. Plus it's hard to hate on NuTrek because Kirk is a Beastie Boy fan and that's my favorite band!

[Vidocq]

The Mission Log Podcast is doing the movies now, they've finally got to Wrath of Khan (I've been waiting for it since their Space Seed episode).

https://soundcloud.com/missionlogs

[Cometman]

The Mission Log Podcast is doing the movies now, they've finally got to Wrath of Khan (I've been waiting for it since their Space Seed episode).

https://soundcloud.com/missionlogs

Wish these were shorter so I could listen to more of them.

They mention the Chekhov issue. I have never understood why anyone has a problem with this. Just because he was not on the bridge does not mean he was not there. Are we to assume that the only people on the enterprise are the ones shown in the episode? Of course not. What happened on the ship when Khan was there would be common knowledge to everyone aboard the ship. Easy.

I do agree with them on one point. The Wrath of Khan "has been and always shall be" the best Trek movie of all time.

[Cyke]

They mention the Chekhov issue. I have never understood why anyone has a problem with this. Just because he was not on the bridge does not mean he was not there. Are we to assume that the only people on the enterprise are the ones shown in the episode? Of course not. What happened on the ship when Khan was there would be common knowledge to everyone aboard the ship. Easy.

The thing is, though, there's nothing in the canon to establish that. Where Chekov was at that point history is merely conjecture and no more valid than, say, explaining Kirk's middle initial changes from R. to T partway through TOS, or why Pike's bed is clearly too short for him, or even why Spock is grinning and yelling all the time in the pilot (one of my favorite jokes about ST09 was that, if they really wanted to be accurate, they should have Spock yelling unnecessarily every time he's on the bridge like in the early episodes of TOS. Perhaps Nimoy thought orders and responses were to be yelled out just like on a maritime vessel, but eventually figured out that you didn't need to do that on a starship!).

If it *was* writer intention to say that Chekov was on board the whole time, a simple line would have sufficed, but it's unfair to make the viewer extrapolate and do mental gymnastics for the sake of the story that they're paying to see -- that's the writer's responsibility, not the viewer.

It's a minor nit in a nearly flawless movie, but it's one of the most famous gaffes in all of Trek history. Perhaps that the movie is so well-revered overall just makes that small error all the more glaring that stands the test of time. You could believe if it you'd like and that's fine and dandy, but it isn't established as fact and so it's not going to be universally accepted as a legitimate retcon.

[Joker]

Imagining Chekhov was somewhere on the ship isn't exactly "mental gymnastics".

[Vidocq]

Yeah, people don't just get a permanent position in the bridge straight out of the academy, that would be stupid and irresponsable (*cough* Wesley *cough*). It's very likely that he worked somewhere on the ship before being promoted to the Bridge.

[sunofdarkchild]

The Chekov thing isn't an issue, as said, because Checkov could have had any number of positions in a crew of 400+ people.

The only problem I have with Wrath of Khan is how the Reliant failed to notice that an already charted system was missing an entire planet, and that no one, either Checkov or a high ranking official, thought to mention to the captain that there's a dangerous genetically engineered former dictator living in that system, so be careful. How can both be such complete surprises?

[Cometman]

The thing is, though, there's nothing in the canon to establish that. Where Chekov was at that point history is merely conjecture and no more valid than, say, explaining Kirk's middle initial changes from R. to T partway through TOS, or why Pike's bed is clearly too short for him, or even why Spock is grinning and yelling all the time in the pilot (one of my favorite jokes about ST09 was that, if they really wanted to be accurate, they should have Spock yelling unnecessarily every time he's on the bridge like in the early episodes of TOS. Perhaps Nimoy thought orders and responses were to be yelled out just like on a maritime vessel, but eventually figured out that you didn't need to do that on a starship!).

If it *was* writer intention to say that Chekov was on board the whole time, a simple line would have sufficed, but it's unfair to make the viewer extrapolate and do mental gymnastics for the sake of the story that they're paying to see -- that's the writer's responsibility, not the viewer.

It's a minor nit in a nearly flawless movie, but it's one of the most famous gaffes in all of Trek history. Perhaps that the movie is so well-revered overall just makes that small error all the more glaring that stands the test of time. You could believe if it you'd like and that's fine and dandy, but it isn't established as fact and so it's not going to be universally accepted as a legitimate retcon.

For me it requires "mental gymnastics" to assume he is not on the ship. Is it "established as fact" that he was not on the ship? Of course not. What is more likely? Given the fact that Chekhov recognized Khan and knew what he had done the answer is obvious. Not trying to be argumentative. It just seems obvious to me.

[Cometman]

Yeah, people don't just get a permanent position in the bridge straight out of the academy, that would be stupid and irresponsable (*cough* Wesley *cough*).

HaaaHaaaaaaaaaa! Not only that but when he was not on the bridge it seemed like he was running engineering.

[Cometman]

https://movies.yahoo.com/news/robert...165614413.html

This should be good news although sometimes I wonder if he has ever watched TOS.

[Vidocq]

https://movies.yahoo.com/news/robert...165614413.html

This should be good news although sometimes I wonder if he has ever watched TOS.

In his (quite long) Mission Logs interview he says he is a TNG guy (hence the prime directive thing in Into Darkness, even though in that particular case wouldn't be an issue in TOS era, Certainly not as big of an issue as lying in his logs which was sort of brushed aside).


I just hope he is a better director than a screen writer.

[Cometman]

I just hope he is a better director than a screen writer.

Agreed. The way I see it the third movie cant be any worse than Into Darkness. You could say I am cautiously optimistic.

[Mr. Mastermind]

Yeah, I liked the first one but I didn't like Into The Darkness for a ton of nerdy reasons. It's good on it's own but not good as part of the film series (or at least the TOS movies, they are miles above the TNG movies.

I know nothing about Star Trek other than the new movies, but Into Darkness is just flat out terrible.

The whole thing is a blatant example of Abrams' tedious "it's a mystery!" style of filmmaking, when he takes something totally obvious and expected, and then hypes it up as an epic mystery with a shocking reveal!!... that pretty much everyone saw coming. After the whole revelation, the film just limps to the finish line, ending with a anti-climatic fight scene and a moronic cop out (superblood? Seriously? They cured death with blood in a major motion picture released in 2013? How did this film get good reviews?).

I remember the first act of the film actually being pretty good, but the film never amounts to anything other than a predictable reveal and a repeat of Kirk's character arc in the first movie.

Abrams is an decent filmmaker and seems like a nice guy, but he markets movies better than he actually makes them and it's effecting the finished product. How "Into Darkness" got better reviews than every other blockbuster that Summer is the real twist, because literally every other major movie released in that Summer was better.

/rant