Star Trek Beyond - Part 1

[I SEE SPIDEY]

A two week push is no big deal.

 

[Sawyer]

Yeah, when I saw that it was being pushed back, my first thought was "Oh f***", but then I saw that it was just two weeks and was greatly relieved.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, when I saw that it was being pushed back, my first thought was "Oh f***", but then I saw that it was just two weeks and was greatly relieved.

They are making you choose between Star Trek and Jax Sawyer.

 

[mclay18]

Two weeks is nothing. Seems like Paramount wants more IMAX and premium large format screens for the day-and-date release in regular theaters.

 

[redhawk23]

There is allegory in the new movies....Star Trek Into Darkness is an allegory on the war on terror

There's allegory but unfortunately its for Orci's nonsense falseflag conspiracy theories that somehow also managed to rehash The Undiscovered Country.

 

[Serpico Jones]

I still can't believe Abrams agreed to direct that horrible script.

 

[DKDetective]

Not really.

Real persuasive and convincing answer there, Roach.

Homefront, In the Pale Moonlight, and the first 2 and a half seasons of BSG all did a far better job of examining the moral questions faced by liberal democracies threatened by extremist threats. The former show the heroes of the story being seduced by and sometimes accepting wrongful, expendient methods to serve a preceived greater good. In doing so, they make us question our assumptions about the correctness of those methods. STID simply provides a caricature of such a dilemma with moustache twirling Admiral Marcus. It just browbeats us over the head about the correctness of the heroes and the wrongness of section 31.

 

[DyeLorean]

I was rewatching the first one the other day, and I love that both movies have like a pre-title sequence and then "STAR TREK" appears on the screen, with the beautiful Giacchino theme... I like that it has the feel of a classic film, that has like the same structure for the beginning of each film, like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, you know what I mean? Like, it respects certain elements that become characteristics. I hope they can keep that in Beyond.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Real persuasive and convincing answer there, Roach.

Homefront, In the Pale Moonlight, and the first 2 and a half seasons of BSG all did a far better job of examining the moral questions faced by liberal democracies threatened by extremist threats. The former show the heroes of the story being seduced by and sometimes accepting wrongful, expendient methods to serve a preceived greater good. In doing so, they make us question our assumptions about the correctness of those methods. STID simply provides a caricature of such a dilemma with moustache twirling Admiral Marcus. It just browbeats us over the head about the correctness of the heroes and the wrongness of section 31.

To be fair... Trek has a spotty record on those types of stories going back to TOS. While I too disdain Orci's conspiracy minded bent, I think the real takeaway from STID was that democratic governments need to live up to their ideals and that indeed we need to vigilant in making sure we don't slide into terrible acts that in the end actually don't contribute to keeping us safe but harm us in the long run, both body and soul, and that this is true both today and in the future.

 

[roach]

There's allegory but unfortunately its for Orci's nonsense falseflag conspiracy theories that somehow also managed to rehash The Undiscovered Country.

UC was about the fall of the soviet union...STID was the war on terror

 

[roach]

Real persuasive and convincing answer there, Roach.

Homefront, In the Pale Moonlight, and the first 2 and a half seasons of BSG all did a far better job of examining the moral questions faced by liberal democracies threatened by extremist threats. The former show the heroes of the story being seduced by and sometimes accepting wrongful, expendient methods to serve a preceived greater good. In doing so, they make us question our assumptions about the correctness of those methods. STID simply provides a caricature of such a dilemma with moustache twirling Admiral Marcus. It just browbeats us over the head about the correctness of the heroes and the wrongness of section 31.

Yeah I was getting off work and had to decide if I was gonna type a long deconstruction of STID or just type something quick. I opted to type some thing quick.
The movie truly starts off with Khan convincing a Star Fleet officer to suicide bomb a London star fleet building. I won't even go into how 'ethnic' the family or the woman who plays the mom is of Parsi descent.
Khan then attacks a the Daystrom building...a building that is two towers. It is also where the top members of star fleet meet...this is an allusion to 9/11's attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon.
Khan attacks and hides in the Ketha province...which almost sounds like an Afghani name.
Marcus sends the enterprise to invade a foreign country to get the terrorist. I am sure I don't have to spell out what that is like...
Khan reveals his story. He was thawed out to help Marcus with his war preps against the Klingons. Many people believe that Osama was trained by the US to help fight the Russians.
Khan is trying to save his crew of 72...the exact same number of virgins one gets when they go to heaven as a martyr.
Marcus wasn't a mustache twirling monster as he was the US (collectively) after 9/11. We were no longer content to let threats happen...were we going to take them out before they occurred.

 

[redhawk23]

All that happens but it doesn't mean that its a good or nuanced allegory. It's hackneyed falseflag conspriacy nut crap.

Marcus is the 9/11 truther villain, the government/military insider pulling the strings on terrorist attatcks in order to justify beefing up the military. And the whole 72 virgins/augments is exactly the kind of on the nose hack writing we're groaning about.

 

[Octoberist]

I love subtext in sci-fi but only when it's done right. Into Darkenss felt like it was half realized, without the sophiscation that it deserved.

 

[DKDetective]

All that happens but it doesn't mean that its a good or nuanced allegory. It's hackneyed falseflag conspriacy nut crap.

Marcus is the 9/11 truther villain, the government/military insider pulling the strings on terrorist attatcks in order to justify beefing up the military. And the whole 72 virgins/augments is exactly the kind of on the nose hack writing we're groaning about.

Yep.

I'm sorry, roach, but all those details you mentioned have nothing to do with good allegory. They are superficial connections and plot points. What are the lessons or themes that come from those connections? Just because there are a lot of parallels between the plotline of STID doesn't make for good allegory. What are the lessons of the story other than a very basic idea that a liberal democracy betraying its principles in the name of safety will ultimately come back to bite it in the butt?

They don't give us any real insight into the issues being examined or a new perspective. BSG's New Caprica arc was a valuable and meaningful allegory because it flipped the tables. It showed the presumed human heroes of the story becoming terrorists and suicide bombers. It made us question our assumptions about who is right and who is wrong and to consider the perspective of the "enemy".

Likewise, In the Pale Moonlight was a wonderful exploration of the Admiral Marcus-dilemma. You had a previously, virtuous Starfleet officer faking intelligence and indirectly causing assassinations in order to save the lives of millions of soldiers and presumably save democracy from a totalitarian enemy. it made us sympathize for Sisko, despite his violation of his ethics and principles, in a way not very differently from the Admiral in Homefront, who he opposed in doing the same thing. What makes one right and the other wrong? The benefit of history proving the one's actions necessary in hindsight?

 

[roach]

http://www.newsarama.com/26061-idri...villain-groundbreaking-for-the-franchise.html

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

http://www.newsarama.com/26061-idri...villain-groundbreaking-for-the-franchise.html

Boilerplate talk from Elba but... Hmm... Could he be a character that wants to set the timeline back to pre-TREK '09? Pegg goes meta?

 

[titansupes]

^ Elba's playing a jaded fanboy then. Instead of Red Matter, is his greatest weapon is his vlog.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I think Star Trek has prided themselves as being quite classic when it comes to villains, like ’he’s a guy who wants to end the world,’ there’s no doubt about that.

erm
no, there's doubt about that. the villains so far
- wanted to meet their creator
- wanted revenge on Kirk
- wanted access to a WMD
- wanted to make contact with whales
- wanted a space ship (for whatever reason, we never learn why)
- wanted to sabotage a peace treaty
- wanted back into the Nexus
- wanted to change history and/or to assimilate the Earth
- wanted revenge on their forefathers that cast them out and/or eternal youth
- wanted... something about Picard, destroying the Earth, revenge on Romulans, a cure for their illness, sleep with Troi...it was confusing, really
- wanted revenge on Spock
- wanted open war with the Klingons/their crew and ship back

I don't think any of them wanted to 'End the world'

 

[titansupes]

erm
no, there's doubt about that. the villains so far
- wanted to meet their creator
- wanted revenge on Kirk
- wanted access to a WMD
- wanted to make contact with whales
- wanted a space ship (for whatever reason, we never learn why)
- wanted to sabotage a peace treaty
- wanted back into the Nexus
- wanted to change history and/or to assimilate the Earth
- wanted revenge on their forefathers that cast them out and/or eternal youth
- wanted... something about Picard, destroying the Earth, revenge on Romulans, a cure for their illness, sleep with Troi...it was confusing, really
- wanted revenge on Spock
- wanted open war with the Klingons/their crew and ship back

I don't think any of them wanted to 'End the world'

Well, let's see--

- Wanted to meet the creator and was destroying the world in the process.
- Wanted revenge on Kirk and I think (been a long time since I've seen it) was going to use the Genesis device to destroy worlds.
- Wanted a WMD... to destroy worlds.
- Wanted to make contact with whales and was destroying the world in the process.
- Yup, he wanted to meet God.
- Yup, sabotage a peace treaty.
- Wanted back into the Nexus and was destroying worlds/systems in the process.
- Changing history/assimilating the human race is very much a form of destroying the world.
- Displacing/then wiping out a (small) civilization could be considered "destroying the world", but yeah, mostly they just wanted eternal youth and to sick it to their ancestors.
- Revenge on Picard/Romulus etc... all with the end goal of destroying the world.
- Revenge on Spock... by destroying one world then trying to destroy a second.
- Yup, wanted to propagate war. Although, they were going to fire 72 WMD's at the Klingon homeworld...

So in fact, they pretty much all were trying to destroy worlds, just for myriad reasons.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Well, let's see--

- Wanted to meet the creator and was destroying the world in the process.
- Wanted revenge on Kirk and I think (been a long time since I've seen it) was going to use the Genesis device to destroy worlds.
- Wanted a WMD... to destroy worlds.
- Wanted to make contact with whales and was destroying the world in the process.
- Yup, he wanted to meet God.
- Yup, sabotage a peace treaty.
- Wanted back into the Nexus and was destroying worlds/systems in the process.
- Changing history/assimilating the human race is very much a form of destroying the world.
- Displacing/then wiping out a (small) civilization could be considered "destroying the world", but yeah, mostly they just wanted eternal youth and to sick it to their ancestors.
- Revenge on Picard/Romulus etc... all with the end goal of destroying the world.
- Revenge on Spock... by destroying one world then trying to destroy a second.
- Yup, wanted to propagate war. Although, they were going to fire 72 WMD's at the Klingon homeworld...

So in fact, they pretty much all were trying to destroy worlds, just for myriad reasons.

- V'Ger was not activly trying, it just happend
- I still think Khan mostly wanted revenge. and maybe conquering the world afterwards. but destroying? the best WMD is one you don't have to use.
- the Klingons back then were still a cold war analogy. they wanted Genesis to be step ahead in the arms race.
- again, the probe didn't try to destroy the world. like V'Ger that was not a motive but something that happend.
- maybe 'Gods' motive was destroying the world, we will never find out.
- sabotaging a peace treaty
- destroyed mostly uninhabitated planets, but again, the havoc was not the motive
- assimilating the world, yes. ending it? no
- destroying a small society, but the world?
- whatever Shinzons motives were, I doubt he himself knew
- destroying one or two planets to take revenge. but end the world?
- open war and destruction of a planet as a means to it, not exactly world ending

 

[titansupes]

- V'Ger was not activly trying, it just happend
- I still think Khan mostly wanted revenge. and maybe conquering the world afterwards. but destroying? the best WMD is one you don't have to use.
- the Klingons back then were still a cold war analogy. they wanted Genesis to be step ahead in the arms race.
- again, the probe didn't try to destroy the world. like V'Ger that was not a motive but something that happend.
- maybe 'Gods' motive was destroying the world, we will never find out.
- sabotaging a peace treaty
- destroyed mostly uninhabitated planets, but again, the havoc was not the motive
- assimilating the world, yes. ending it? no
- destroying a small society, but the world?
- whatever Shinzons motives were, I doubt he himself knew
- destroying one or two planets to take revenge. but end the world?
- open war and destruction of a planet as a means to it, not exactly world ending

I think you're seriously splitting hairs here. The end result is the destruction of worlds, even if the antagonist isn't doing it on purpose (V'Ger). And since when does destroying one world and going after another not mean "the end of the world"?

It's likely that Elba's villain will fall into a similar category to one of the above.

 

[Hush]

Has this started filming yet?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's been filming for a while now.

 

[Hush]

damn, i'm behind. Do we have set-pics yet?

 

[redhawk23]

UC was about the fall of the soviet union...STID was the war on terror

And both involve generals orchestrating false flag attacks to frame the Klingons and justify increased military actions. The schemes are more or less the same despite commenting on different real life topics. The main difference though is that in Undiscovered Country its a lone actor orchestrating things. In STID though Marcus is in charge, Star Fleet and Federation themselves are much more complicit overall in the conspiracy.