J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

[SnakeDoctor]

Which makes absolutely no sense, contributes nothing to the story.

It contributed the Prime Directive controversy to the story, showed that there remained conflict between Spock and Kirk regarding rule-following ... and established that Kirk was willing to break the rules to save the life of a friend. Seems that contributed quite a bit to the rest of the movie.

Plot contrivances for effect are well within the Trek tradition.

SnakeDoc

 

[Adolfo]

Which makes absolutely no sense, contributes nothing to the story.

Then maybe all cool scenes ever made on film should be cut if they dont help with the story?...I'm just telling you why it was done...plus it helped make it easier(and cooler) to show the prime directive as the previous post mentioned

 

[Adolfo]

So far it's my favorite film of 2013!

 

[FQRizzo]

Which makes absolutely no sense, contributes nothing to the story.

Embrace the stupid.

 

[CelticPredator]

Because they were hiding from the aliens.

What was hard to understand?

 

[a-dev]

Now you know what the answer to that is gonna be.

 

[CelticPredator]

They're wrong then. Because that's why the Enterprise was under water.

 

[FQRizzo]

Because they were hiding from the aliens.

They should've hid behind Uranus.

 

[CelticPredator]

But that's not dramatic.

That's dull.

 

[Sachiel]

I'd like to see someone debate this Star Trek is really like Gene Roddenberry's.

If Gene Roddenberry was alive today he'd say "Now this is Star Trek!"

 

[Adolfo]

But that's not dramatic.

That's dull.

Correcto!...It was done for EFFECT!

 

[CollectorNC]

It contributed the Prime Directive controversy to the story, showed that there remained conflict between Spock and Kirk regarding rule-following ... and established that Kirk was willing to break the rules to save the life of a friend. Seems that contributed quite a bit to the rest of the movie.

Plot contrivances for effect are well within the Trek tradition.

SnakeDoc

Them being on the planet, interfering with the volcano, and running around were enough to contribute to the PD controversy. Geez. They could have saved Spock from orbit. Now you are starting to sound like Lindelof defending one of his scripts that looks like swiss cheese in regards to plot.

Then maybe all cool scenes ever made on film should be cut if they dont help with the story?...I'm just telling you why it was done...plus it helped make it easier(and cooler) to show the prime directive as the previous post mentioned

Enterprise under water was a cool scene? There were tons of cool scenes in the film, most of which made sense in their placement; this one did not. The Enterprise is not a submarine.

If Gene Roddenberry was alive today he'd say "Now this is Star Trek!"

He wouldn't have lived past the Berman years; in fact, I think Berman killed him.

 

[Sachiel]

Correcto!...It was done for EFFECT!

Yes... it effectively pissed off hardcore Trekkies.

 

[Adolfo]

Listen Common sense says yes they should have been in space...but...didnt the volcano offer interference in regards to transporting and thus had to be a bit closer to it...so they made a mistake and showed themselves and became gods...oh well...mistakes happen

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Them being on the planet, interfering with the volcano, and running around were enough to contribute to the PD controversy. Geez. They could have saved Spock from orbit. Now you are starting to sound like Lindelof defending one of his scripts that looks like swiss cheese in regards to plot.

They couldn't save Spock from orbit because of "transporter interference" or "I can't get a transporter lock" -- two longtime favorite Trek plot contrivances that don't seem to bother anybody.

Enterprise underwater isn't a plot hole. Its an unexplained decision. Doesn't really make any difference 'why' anyway. It moved the plot forward. It made for a better PD controversy because, instead of a few people seeing one dude beam up ... the whole civilization saw a starship fly overhead.

Guess they could've flown the Enterprise into the atmosphere instead. Doesn't really make any difference either way. Maybe Kirk didn't want to risk using a shuttlecraft in full view in broad daylight ... so submerging under cover of darkness and using proximity to get past "transporter interference" was the next best option. Maybe he wanted the Enterprise really close-by for emergency transport just in case something went wrong ... which it did. Maybe they were studying something in the freaking water and had sensor interference along with transporter interference. Who cares? You're awfully bothered that they didn't fully explain the plot contrivances, on top of "transporter interference", that drove them to submerge the Enterprise.

Sometimes the unexpected is worthwhile simply because its unexpected. Sometimes nitpicks aren't worth nitpicking. It looked cool enough. Why ask why?

SnakeDoc

 

[CelticPredator]

Because they're mad their show became something marketable and fun.

When Trek's been trying to do this ****ing crap since the 90's.

 

[K07]

Because they're mad their show became something marketable and fun.

When Trek's been trying to do this ****ing crap since the 90's.

You bash ASM because it's fans **** on Raimi's films. I'm with you there.

But then you come into the Star Trek thread and **** on all other Trek things calling it dumb and bad and saying this is what Trek should have always been? And you are openly dismissing bad writing saying "but it made the movie more fun and dramatic." Hypocrite much?

SnakeDoctor's opinions are written by a Trekkie and his arguments aren't about everything needing to look shiny and cool. His argument is correlating to the plot and story. I don't happen to agree with his argument, and he even acknowledges they could have added this plot element over the Prime Directive in a different way.

That scene wasn't a deal breaker for me. It was weird, but I wasn't cringing at the stupidity like I was during most of "Attack of the Clones."

Again, I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. Solid 6/10. It's not my favorite of the series, but I enjoyed it far more than the '09 one. I'll rewatch that and see if I have a change of opinion on it.

EDIT - I didn't know p00p was profanity and had to be censored.... This site's censor filter is a tad much, no?

 

[The Ween]

No reason to look for stuff to dislike when it's so blatant. In fairness to Abrams, there were plenty of Star Trek episodes over the years that were just as filled with plot holes, but Abrams has a much bigger canvas, so they are a lot more noticeable. I guess some go into a theater and just don't care, ask no questions. I, for the life of me, have yet to hear any explanation as to why the Enterprise had to be under water, because there is none. Also, I'd like to see someone debate this Star Trek is really like Gene Roddenberry's.

They didn't have a cloaking device yet.

 

[The Ween]

Which makes absolutely no sense, contributes nothing to the story.

I didn't think twice about it. There are a lot of things in the Star Trek universe that makes you wonder.

Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn't watch anymore of these movies. I think it will only aggravate you.

 

[a-dev]

You bash ASM because it's fans **** on Raimi's films. I'm with you there.

But then you come into the Star Trek thread and **** on all other Trek things calling it dumb and bad and saying this is what Trek should have always been?

Yeah I thought Celtic was very much against ****ing on the old just because something new has come along. And other than saying he likes TWOK thats pretty much the way he has talked about old Star Trek, rather dismissively, like it was never good until Abrams films