Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 4

[JAK®]

Sorry... why are people upset that the shipyard was in Iowa? Who gives a f***?

Because as fans, it is important to them that the details and customs of a universe as well established as Star Trek be maintained in order to create an air of realism. To see those details changed in order to make the storytelling more convenient (and contrived) is irksome.

If you aren't as interested, fine, but keep in mind that we're on a superhero movie forum and this is the place where these things are discussed. To criticise that is to be equivalent to the *******s in high school who interfere with the nerd's D&D games.

 

[Infinity9999x]

And criticizing the fact that the shipyard was in Iowa is akin to the person who refused to start the D&D campaign because they didn't like the color of the dice.

Because as fans, it is important to them that the details and customs of a universe as well established as Star Trek be maintained in order to create an air of realism. To see those details changed in order to make the storytelling more convenient (and contrived) is irksome.

If you aren't as interested, fine, but keep in mind that we're on a superhero movie forum and this is the place where these things are discussed. To criticise that is to be equivalent to the *******s in high school who interfere with the nerd's D&D games.

 

[JAK®]

And criticizing the fact that the shipyard was in Iowa is akin to the person who refused to start the D&D campaign because they didn't like the color of the dice.

Difference is that the films will continue to be released as they are and you can freely ignore what people say here, whereas that guy directly interferes with the playing of the game.

Kinda like the people here who tell people to stop talking about things they don't like.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Or they want to talk about something less trivial.

I'll start. So what are the strengths of Cumberbach's character?

 

[JAK®]

Or they want to talk about something less trivial.

The entire forum is about trivial things. Not a single thing here has any outcome on how the film will turn out.

This website is built on our ability to talk about every tiny insignificant detail.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

And we're allowed to voice our disapproval of the topic at hand because, unlike topics such as who will play who, what will the costumes be like, what will the plot details be like when speculated, where a ship is built is almost as insignificant as discussing chest hair in the Captain America thread.

Of course you can discuss it, no one's stopping you. It's more of personal preference.

 

[Sawyer]

Or they want to talk about something less trivial.

I'll start. So what are the strengths of Cumberbach's character?

Dat voice. It's like Jeremy Irons and Satan had a love child.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Dat voice. It's like Jeremy Irons and Satan had a love child.

Actually, you may be on to something there. They keep talking about his character's powers of persuasion and all that... I wonder if he'll be like Saruman in the sense that his voice will actually be able to sway people's minds.

 

[redhawk23]

And we're allowed to voice our disapproval of the topic at hand because, unlike topics such as who will play who, what will the costumes be like, what will the plot details be like when speculated, where a ship is built is almost as insignificant as discussing chest hair in the Captain America thread.

Of course you can discuss it, no one's stopping you. It's more of personal preference.

The whole Iowa shipyard thing is just a tangible, easily pointed to example of several larger trends in JJ's Star Trek that people aren't necessarily fan's of. Same with the whole underwater thing. Its just something people latch onto because its easier to point out and discuss than a dislike of the overall style and tone and things.

The whole "Kirk seeing the enterprise built in his own town" is a fairly effective image and has thematic implications and such, but its part of a different style of story telling than many people look for in star trek. Just listen to the commentary, the whole reason for that scene was to riff on the twin suns shot in A New Hope. JJ is far more concerned with creating great moments than a consistent whole. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly made for an entertaining film, but its just not necessarily everyone's cup of tea.

 

[Destructus86]

Honestly...when they first showed the ship being built at a shipyard...my first thought as a fan was not "What?? This FAILS! It's not being built in space!"

My first thought was *$#Y%&!!! it's a freaking Starship!!"

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

To me, it's still grasping at straws at the bigger scale of things. I don't think anyone walked out of a theater or at Destruct said, expressed actual anger because The Enterprise was built in Iowa. I honestly don't believe that many people past the number of finger were angry at that.

 

[JAK®]

If I told you that I set the theatre on fire due to my outrage, would that justify my criticism?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Of Course.

 

[Octoberist]

Dat voice. It's like Jeremy Irons and Satan had a love child.

Or Patrick Stewart.

 

[Smegger56]

Because as fans, it is important to them that the details and customs of a universe as well established as Star Trek be maintained in order to create an air of realism. To see those details changed in order to make the storytelling more convenient (and contrived) is irksome.

If you aren't as interested, fine, but keep in mind that we're on a superhero movie forum and this is the place where these things are discussed. To criticise that is to be equivalent to the *******s in high school who interfere with the nerd's D&D games.

The JJ film now exists in a different timeline to the one TOS-VOY existed in. So JJ and his team can do whatever they want (for the most part) to Trek post 2233, like build the ship on Earth.

If people aren't aware of this fact, then surely having the ship launch in the year 2255 instead of 2245 should have been as big an issue as the ship being built in Iowa.

I do agree that if JJ and co did a prequel that existed in the same timeline as the other shows/films, then even I'd be a bit 'wtf' (though I'd still enjoy the film).

 

[roach]

It's like being mad that TDK Joker doesnt look like Batman's Joker...its a reboot

 

[DarkKnight88]

What serves the story best for the story that you are telling is MOST important. Having Kirk look at the Enterprise being built serves an emotional response in the audience and THAT is most important. There's a reason all the Star Trek shows got progressively worse because they built themselves into a corner and the stories suffered because of it.

 

[redhawk23]

What serves the story best for the story that you are telling is MOST important. Having Kirk look at the Enterprise being built serves an emotional response in the audience and THAT is most important. There's a reason all the Star Trek shows got progressively worse because they built themselves into a corner and the stories suffered because of it.

That is only one kind of story telling and its not the only way those feelings could have been invoked or the only way the story could be told. Also, creating moments is not the same as story telling.

JJ's style is far more similar to say George Lucas than Nicholas Meyer. Some people are bigger fans of one style over another. This is ok.

And you know how you avoid getting stuck in corners? By not making prequels.

 

[redhawk23]

It's like being mad that TDK Joker doesnt look like Batman's Joker...its a reboot

Those are completely different series, this series of films claims to have a lot more relation to what came before.

 

[wobbly]

It's like being mad that TDK Joker doesnt look like Batman's Joker...its a reboot

And you know how you avoid getting stuck in corners? By not making prequels.

Technically Abrams Trek is neither a reboot nor a prequel. Its hybrid of the 2 (a 'requel' if such a term exists).

Basically everything that happened before on TV and film does remain in continuity, with Abrams Trek beginning at the point where Nero changed the past, thus allowing for the TOS crew to have all new stories for us now in an alternate timeline that's had over 20 years for all manner of changes to ripple out from Nero's incursion.

It's a clever way of them 'having their cake and getting to eat it too'. The original timeline and all that goes with it still exists for Trekkies, with this new one a playground for the movies to have the TOS crew and do things differently with them.

 

[wobbly]

Those are completely different series, this series of films claims to have a lot more relation to what came before.

It's supposed to be the same series up until Nero emerged in the past. So the Enterprise TV show happened for this timeline as well.

Where things get muddled is that the original or 'prime' timeline had numerous occasions where they went into the past and helped history along (City at the edge of Forever, First Contact , etc), with it clearly shown that changing history didn't create an alternate timeline seperate from the original, it totally changed the original one, thus providing the need for whichever of the crews were involved to restore things.

I would fanwank the explanation as being that the nature of Nero's time travel (black hole) created enough energy or something to splinter the timeline (they could have dropped that little bit of exposition into the film really, just to explain why time travel worked differently than had been seen before in Trek)

 

[redhawk23]

Technically Abrams Trek is neither a reboot nor a prequel. Its hybrid of the 2 (a 'requel' if such a term exists).

Basically everything that happened before on TV and film does remain in continuity, with Abrams Trek beginning at the point where Nero changed the past, thus allowing for the TOS crew to have all new stories for us now in an alternate timeline that's had over 20 years for all manner of changes to ripple out from Nero's incursion.

It's a clever way of them 'having their cake and getting to eat it too'. The original timeline and all that goes with it still exists for Trekkies, with this new one a playground for the movies to have the TOS crew and do things differently with them.

I know. I was more responding to comments that Star Trek got worse and worse. Enterprise just wasn't that good of and idea and the creative powers that be were just kind of played out.

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

 

[warhorse78]

No Spock?????? They should have had Spock and Kirk on the front page.

 

[Sawyer]

EW.com shows Kirk and Spock on the cover. I think it's a two cover kind of thing.