Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 6

[jacobed]

The novelization *does* answer some of these questions, but I know... novelizations aren't always canon and it would be nice if they had been able to fit the explanations into the film (maybe they didn't fit pacing wise, who knows). So take these for what it's worth (even if it means you want to disregard them)

Some of the answers in the novelization:

On the Khan Teleporting: He doesn't go straight from Earth to Qo'noS, it's more that he does bunny hops with each one requiring more power to go a greater distance. The final hop is from a cargo ship or station (can't remember exactly which) which uses so much power that it completely burns out the transwarp/transporter device which prevents anyone from following that way. Spock also notes that it would take an extremely robust human to survive such a drastic transport (that even a Vulcan would be stressed by the process). The movie somewhat hints that it wasn't direct because when he appears on Qo'noS he's wearing a coat that he wasn't wearing in the jump ship when he was attacking Starfleet.

Teleporting at the end: The difference here being that instead of falling vertically with very little horizontal movement (well, at least relatively speaking), Spock and Khan are travelling horizontally + they're traveling through a heavily populated city (instead of the mostly deserted/evacuated area of Vulcan). The book clarifies that with how fast their moving, plus the densly populated area, this results in it being difficult to get a lock on them to beam them up.

Finally the blood, I referenced this on the previous page of this thread (emphasis by me):

Which makes sense to me, Bones is a doctor, he's going to go with what he *knows* works and try to recreate those conditions as much as he can instead of having to experiment with possible unknown variables.

Again, take 'em for what it's worth. Me personally, I'm fine with treating novelizations as a secondary-canon (so long as they don't contradict anything that appears in the film -- or in future films - if they do, then the film canon is first and foremost), but I understand if others choose to completely disregard them

Eh yeah i suppose some of that makes sense. I loved this movie thought it was just as good as the first. Im not a Star Trek person at all, are Vulcans more powerful than humans? Spock was hanging in there with Khan pretty good. Really really loved the action in this. I'm happy they didn't overdo the humor either thats huge problem I have with the Marvel movies. I'd put this right up there with Man of Steel and World War Z as my favorites of the year

 

[Silvermoon]

Eh yeah i suppose some of that makes sense. I loved this movie thought it was just as good as the first. Im not a Star Trek person at all, are Vulcans more powerful than humans? Spock was hanging in there with Khan pretty good. Really really loved the action in this. I'm happy they didn't overdo the humor either thats huge problem I have with the Marvel movies. I'd put this right up there with Man of Steel and World War Z as my favorites of the year

Vulcan's are supposed to be (at least) a couple times physically stronger than an average human (if I remember correctly) as well as have faster reflexes.

 

[jacobed]

I figured since he was able to keep up with Khan and was actually hurting him. Loved it when he lost his temper and just destroyed Khan. Thought that was phenomenal

 

[Picard Sisko]

To be fair, Kirk and Spock's relationship never really progressed all that much in the ORIGINAL movies either. Yeah Spock died, and they had disagreements from time to time, but they're friendship was never really in trouble. In fact, none of the ST movie really did anything new. That's what so annoying about people calling JJ's films "generic action movies" pretty much ALL of the ST movies were like that. None of them really focused on exploring and discovery, the TV shows did, but you can do that over a season of TV better than in a two hour movie. Most of the films have been focused on the action, only TMP and TVH really tried anything different, and TMP failed in that regard.

That's exactly it. Most people these days don't want to go pay to see a 2 1/2 hour film about exploration. It works on television, but not so much on film. I think that the movies give a great opportunity to show what can't be done on the small screen (and vice versa).

STID isn't anything different than most of the older films... it just has a bigger budget and better special effects.\

*EDIT*

On a side note, I actually really like Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I think the movie is more about having an immersive experience and going on a long journey through the unknown entity known as "V'Ger." I think if it was cut down by 30-40 minutes, people wouldn't have criticized it as much. The story is great, and it showed that Star Trek can be more than a campy TV show from the 60s. It can be dark and serious, and people on the Enterprise are actually in danger. Remember that transporter accident? Ouch!

 

[jacobed]

Better acting too

 

[MrMaooz]

Eh yeah i suppose some of that makes sense. I loved this movie thought it was just as good as the first. Im not a Star Trek person at all, are Vulcans more powerful than humans? Spock was hanging in there with Khan pretty good. Really really loved the action in this. I'm happy they didn't overdo the humor either thats huge problem I have with the Marvel movies. I'd put this right up there with Man of Steel and World War Z as my favorites of the year

Those 3 are my favorites of 2013 too.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Better acting too

I always thought the acting was fine from the main cast. Its usually guest stars/small characters who have wooden acting. Though this was always due to the low budget.

 

[jacobed]

The novelization *does* answer some of these questions, but I know... novelizations aren't always canon and it would be nice if they had been able to fit the explanations into the film (maybe they didn't fit pacing wise, who knows). So take these for what it's worth (even if it means you want to disregard them)

Some of the answers in the novelization:

On the Khan Teleporting: He doesn't go straight from Earth to Qo'noS, it's more that he does bunny hops with each one requiring more power to go a greater distance. The final hop is from a cargo ship or station (can't remember exactly which) which uses so much power that it completely burns out the transwarp/transporter device which prevents anyone from following that way. Spock also notes that it would take an extremely robust human to survive such a drastic transport (that even a Vulcan would be stressed by the process). The movie somewhat hints that it wasn't direct because when he appears on Qo'noS he's wearing a coat that he wasn't wearing in the jump ship when he was attacking Starfleet.

Teleporting at the end: The difference here being that instead of falling vertically with very little horizontal movement (well, at least relatively speaking), Spock and Khan are travelling horizontally + they're traveling through a heavily populated city (instead of the mostly deserted/evacuated area of Vulcan). The book clarifies that with how fast their moving, plus the densly populated area, this results in it being difficult to get a lock on them to beam them up.

Finally the blood, I referenced this on the previous page of this thread (emphasis by me):

Which makes sense to me, Bones is a doctor, he's going to go with what he *knows* works and try to recreate those conditions as much as he can instead of having to experiment with possible unknown variables.

Again, take 'em for what it's worth. Me personally, I'm fine with treating novelizations as a secondary-canon (so long as they don't contradict anything that appears in the film -- or in future films - if they do, then the film canon is first and foremost), but I understand if others choose to completely disregard them

Eh yeah i suppose some of that makes sense. I loved this movie thought it was just as good as the first. Im not a Star Trek person at all, are Vulcans more powerful than humans? Spock was hanging in there with Khan pretty good. Really really loved the action in this. I'm happy they didn't overdo the humor either thats huge problem I have with the Marvel movies. I'd put this right up there with Man of Steel and World War Z as my favorites of the year

 

[Picard Sisko]

Vulcans are typically more powerful than humans... not sure to what extent though.

 

[Picard Sisko]

For me, the movies were always a way of taking a break from the format of the TV series. They get all of the exploring and character driven plots done in the show, and now lets relax and watch an action film with the same characters and expand Star Trek. I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[danoyse]

To be fair, Kirk and Spock's relationship never really progressed all that much in the ORIGINAL movies either. Yeah Spock died, and they had disagreements from time to time, but they're friendship was never really in trouble. In fact, none of the ST movie really did anything new. That's what so annoying about people calling JJ's films "generic action movies" pretty much ALL of the ST movies were like that. None of them really focused on exploring and discovery, the TV shows did, but you can do that over a season of TV better than in a two hour movie. Most of the films have been focused on the action, only TMP and TVH really tried anything different, and TMP failed in that regard.

True. And people complained about rehashing Khan in this movie, but guess what? There was no reason to bring him back in the original movie series either. Plus doing so lead one of the more obvious continuity errors from the show to the movies (Khan remembering Chekhov, who didn't join the show until the following season).

Wrath of Khan is bloody brilliant, but some of the same complaints leveled at Into Darkness certainly apply to that movie as well.

What I found emotional about the 'sacrifice' at the end of Into Darkness is that I felt that it became the moment that defined their friendship. That was when they both grew up, in a sense, and when they both figured each other out.

It's not the same relationship that it was before. They've both been affected by tragedies that their first incarnations never had to deal with, and they're different people because of it. They've been told that they have a lifelong friendship, but from where they stand now...they don't see how that's possible. They just don't get each other.

But suddenly there's this moment where Kirk finally understands the importance of a sacrifice, and Spock understands the impact of one. We knew it wouldn't be permanent, but they didn't, which made that moment as devastating as it was supposed to be, and really nothing like the first version of that scene from Wrath of Khan (which was devastating in its own right).

 

[Soapy]

For me, the movies were always a way of taking a break from the format of the TV series. They get all of the exploring and character driven plots done in the show, and now lets relax and watch an action film with the same characters and expand Star Trek. I see nothing wrong with this.

I don't see a problem with it either, except there's no television series to "take a break" from. We're getting a very lopsided version of Star Trek right now. I don't think it can be argued that the Abrams movies are by far the most action-driven Star Trek has ever been. Which again, would be fine, but there's nothing to counterbalance that for people like myself who think Star Trek is at its best when it's being thoughtful and introspective.

 

[Loki882]

True. And people complained about rehashing Khan in this movie, but guess what? There was no reason to bring him back in the original movie series either. Plus doing so lead one of the more obvious continuity errors from the show to the movies (Khan remembering Chekhov, who didn't join the show until the following season).

Wrath of Khan is bloody brilliant, but some of the same complaints leveled at Into Darkness certainly apply to that movie as well.

What I found emotional about the 'sacrifice' at the end of Into Darkness is that I felt that it became the moment that defined their friendship. That was when they both grew up, in a sense, and when they both figured each other out.

It's not the same relationship that it was before. They've both been affected by tragedies that their first incarnations never had to deal with, and they're different people because of it. They've been told that they have a lifelong friendship, but from where they stand now...they don't see how that's possible. They just don't get each other.

But suddenly there's this moment where Kirk finally understands the importance of a sacrifice, and Spock understands the impact of one. We knew it wouldn't be permanent, but they didn't, which made that moment as devastating as it was supposed to be, and really nothing like the first version of that scene from Wrath of Khan (which was devastating in its own right).

I always liked Koenig's explanation of that WOK plot hole. He argued that Chekhov was already a crew member on board the Enterprise, but since he wasn't a bridge officer at the time, we never saw him. He and Khan could have met offscreen at some point. That makes sense to me.

 

[Loki882]

I don't see a problem with it either, except there's no television series to "take a break" from. We're getting a very lopsided version of Star Trek right now. I don't think it can be argued that the Abrams movies are by far the most action-driven Star Trek has ever been. Which again, would be fine, but there's nothing to counterbalance that for people like myself who think Star Trek is at its best when it's being thoughtful and introspective.

The reason why JJ's films are more action packed is because they finally have the budget and effects technology to do really cool space battles. I fully believe that if such technology were available back when the old movies came out, they would have used it to. Also, there being no TV show isn't JJ's fault.

 

[Soapy]

I never said it was.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I always liked Koenig's explanation of that WOK plot hole. He argued that Chekhov was already a crew member on board the Enterprise, but since he wasn't a bridge officer at the time, we never saw him. He and Khan could have met offscreen at some point. That makes sense to me.

But now with JJ Abrams' films, the chances of getting a TV series are much higher than before IMO.

 

[H.U.S.T.L.E.]

What I found emotional about the 'sacrifice' at the end of Into Darkness is that I felt that it became the moment that defined their friendship. That was when they both grew up, in a sense, and when they both figured each other out.

It's not the same relationship that it was before. They've both been affected by tragedies that their first incarnations never had to deal with, and they're different people because of it. They've been told that they have a lifelong friendship, but from where they stand now...they don't see how that's possible. They just don't get each other.

But suddenly there's this moment where Kirk finally understands the importance of a sacrifice, and Spock understands the impact of one. We knew it wouldn't be permanent, but they didn't, which made that moment as devastating as it was supposed to be, and really nothing like the first version of that scene from Wrath of Khan (which was devastating in its own right).

This is what I was getting at in my response to Soapy, but said much more eloquently. Kirk & Spock's relationship was the heart of the movie and I thought it was done extremely well, thus making some of the plot holes less of a hang-up for me.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The film moves so fast that the plot holes aren't so obvious (at least not in the first viewing).

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I always liked Koenig's explanation of that WOK plot hole. He argued that Chekhov was already a crew member on board the Enterprise, but since he wasn't a bridge officer at the time, we never saw him. He and Khan could have met offscreen at some point. That makes sense to me.

Oh come on. It's a plot hole. Simple as that.

 

[danoyse]

This is what I was getting at in my response to Soapy, but said much more eloquently. Kirk & Spock's relationship was the heart of the movie and I thought it was done extremely well, thus making some of the plot holes less of a hang-up for me.

And I thought Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto played that scene so beautifully. I've seen it four times now, and Spock's "Because you are my friend," line has left me verklempt every time I've watched it.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

True. And people complained about rehashing Khan in this movie, but guess what? There was no reason to bring him back in the original movie series either. Plus doing so lead one of the more obvious continuity errors from the show to the movies (Khan remembering Chekhov, who didn't join the show until the following season).

Wrath of Khan is bloody brilliant, but some of the same complaints leveled at Into Darkness certainly apply to that movie as well.

What I found emotional about the 'sacrifice' at the end of Into Darkness is that I felt that it became the moment that defined their friendship. That was when they both grew up, in a sense, and when they both figured each other out.

It's not the same relationship that it was before. They've both been affected by tragedies that their first incarnations never had to deal with, and they're different people because of it. They've been told that they have a lifelong friendship, but from where they stand now...they don't see how that's possible. They just don't get each other.

But suddenly there's this moment where Kirk finally understands the importance of a sacrifice, and Spock understands the impact of one. We knew it wouldn't be permanent, but they didn't, which made that moment as devastating as it was supposed to be, and really nothing like the first version of that scene from Wrath of Khan (which was devastating in its own right).

So, so so so VERY much this. This is exactly what people are completely missing about the last act of this film. I guess some people can't get over it's familiarity to see it's intent. So many blind angry Trekkies cry RIP-OFF without putting the two scenes into context.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Oh come on. It's a plot hole. Simple as that.

Well technically it is a plot hole, but it can be easily filled in order to make sense of that scene in Wrath of Khan. Just because Chekov was not shown on the bridge does not mean he wasn't somewhere on the ship during that episode. This assumption isn't exactly far fetched.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Well technically it is a plot hole, but it can be easily filled in order to make sense of that scene in Wrath of Khan. Just because Chekov was not shown on the bridge does not mean he wasn't somewhere on the ship during that episode. This assumption isn't exactly far fetched.

No, it's not far fetched, but as a matter of FACT in the show and the film he wasn't there. It was a writing error. Simple as that. Not a big deal. I don't care either way and I'm not hating on Wrath (god forbid someone does though) I just find it frustrating people will bend over backwards to justify any flaws in the original series or show but the new films are totally unforgivable. Chekov wasn't there in Space Seed. It was never mentioned in Wrath that he was elsewhere on the Enterprise.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Okay, well you can do as you please, but I will fill in the plot hole myself and assume Checkov was on that ship.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Okay, well you can do as you please, but I will fill in the plot hole myself and assume Checkov was on that ship.

Is it really that hard to accept flaws in the older films? Really?