star trek:into darkness (WARNING: SPOILERS as of 4/23/13)

Imo that would've been cool. I like that look.

Bingo. Bullseye! Blindingly obnoxious.

I actually like the Brewery Engineering Dept, but it has NO place on ANY ship named Enterprise.

 

*sigh* it's not about justification.

It's about those who can enjoy TOS with all it's flaws, but who then turns into a weapons grade cocktard about JJTrek with all it's flaws.

Some of us can enjoy both, whilst laughing at, and being disappointed in, the
flaws in them.

Some of us can want better, but still take pleasure in what we're being given. It's why we still enjoy many of the original movies still after all.

It's about those who fail to comprehend that when someone invests a huge sum of money in a film, there are expectations of it having a wide reach to large audience and not to those sat cross-armed in the cinema in plastic pointy ears, red shirts and faces looking like they're trying shit out Mount Rushmore.

Some of us can be Trek geeks without our DNA having the same fucking chemical formula as starch.

As for yourself, someone who incessantly whines about Teh Spaycee Battlez! is really in no spot to start preaching over 'merely' enjoying something.

 

How many folks you see doin' THAT, exactly?

 

Really? You've never noticed anyone try to defend Abrams Trek by bashing the rest of the franchise? What rock have you been living under?

 

Look back through this thread. Or through any thread about either of these movies. Better yet, go someplace like Trek BBS and look around their Abrams Trek forum.

 

Nope.

what I've seen is people pointing out that expecting near perfection from the latest entry in a series of presentations which were far from perfect and often featured the exact same flaws is...irrational.

If you say "that's a duex ex machina" and I say "yep, seen them in Trek before" that does NOT constitute "bashing" the previous material (or, indeed, defending the new) - all that represents is the noting of a factual reality as a response to a silly complaint.

If YOU think that YOU are bashing JJTrek and thus anyone who says something similar about TrekPrime is thus also bashing, THAT opinion is bashed on your view of your own intent, not mine or anyone else's.

 

If you think that's all that's been going on, then you really have been living under a rock. From the start, the Abrams Trek fanboys' attempts to defend the craptitude that is that movie has been based on the premise of bashing the original franchise, listing off things that they apparently failed to notice were in the movie they were defending.

 

Again, I'm going to ask for evidence. Quotes, links, that sort of thing. Put up, or shut up.

 

Here's the bottom line for me: when I left the theater after seeing nuTrek I, I went home & downloaded a cam copy just because I wanted to see it again*. After seeing TFF and Gen, I felt sick to my stomach. After seeing Ins & Nem, I wanted to punch somebody in the throat. Leaving a new Trek film feeling good is something I've only done twice since 1991. That earns JJ & company another shot at my $, even if I don't care for the 'magic blood' rumor I've heard.






*-What, go back & see it again in the theater? I liked it, but i,m not made of $.

 

there are a few among us who've never been fans of TOS from the jump. But excluding those, you are simply seeing things through a biased perception.

Feel free to cite examples so we can discuss concrete realities instead of general impressions.

 

You mean when you guys put TOS on a rediculous pedestal and people point out it had flaws too?


But to be honest, you Abrams hater provide more entertainment to the rest of than you will ever know.

 

So true. Even if I hated JJ Trek, I'd still be at Captain X.

 

Abrams haters be hatin'.

 

look, it works both ways...

so it's really just a matter of scale.

just watched "The Deadly Years" today. Let's break that one down, shall we?

magic radiation causes ultra rapid aging, but because Chekov was scared he doesn't get affected. Bones saves the day by concluding that his adrenaline levels were elevated, pulls a magic adrenaline potion out of his ass between make up alterations, and everyone gets better in the time it takes to get to the bridge.

In the meantime, Commodore Schmuck the paper pusher assumes command and has taken the Enterprise on a beeline through the neutral zone. Five seconds in and there are Ten Romulans firing shots at them. TEN FUCKING ROMULAN SHIPS. (Where did they come from? Does Enterprise carry them around?). Magically rejuvenated Kirk steps onto the bridge, broadcasts so the Romulans can hear that he's going to use the Corbomite [-]manure[/-] maneuver and fuck that part of space up forever, and they buy it.

Have you ever actually watched this show?

 

Tholian Web.

Spatial interphase nerve scrambling space madness cured by booze.

*Drops microphone*
*Marches off stage*

 

But how many people are screaming, "OMG! OMG! OMG! That wuz teh bestest episode evah!!!!111!!!"?

 

And how many idiots ponied up $20 to see it, and then claimed that the number of idiots who got duped just like they did means it was hot shit? "But millions of people watched it, so OBVIOUSLY it was good! DeHEHHHHH!"

 

Garamet logic gets the same response garamet would get from me doing the same thing. Hell if I'm going to waste any time or effort on someone who thinks they're being cute by denying the obvious.

You Abrams Trek fanboys are the real entertainment. You even provided some yourself by assuming I'm a TOS fan. Then there's the other assumption, which is that I'm not critical of any of the flaws in any of the rest of the Trek franchise. What, you think pointing at other bad writing somehow excuses bad writing in Abrams Trek? See what I mean? Endless entertainment.

 

Except that never happens. The cure is actually a heavily modified version of a Klingon nerve gas which McCoy works on for most of the episode.

The only time Scotch comes into it is Scotty's comment (clearly intended to be humorous) "Does it go well with Scotch?" And McCoy's response which seems to be sarcastic "It should".

 

And it's a difference that really matters.

 

That's not the question though. We're looking at logical lapses and continuity problems.

Please try to pay attention.

 

Yes, we are. In the case of the post you quoted, I was looking at the logical lapse involved in people claiming that the suck of NuTrek is less sucky if you throw down a Jackson and sit in a theater to get sucked at, as opposed to enduring the suck of bad Star Trek episodes for free at home.

 

So you'd pay $20 to see "The Deadly Years" in a theater if they threw in some lens flares and epic space battles?

 

Yes it is a very clear distinction.

the cure for the madness caused by the interphasic space is a diluted form of the Klingon nerve gas.

McCoy mentions halfway through the episode that he is convinced that is the answer and repeated research proves him right.

What made many of the OS episodes such classic was attention to detail that they actually laid the groundwork for the solution much earlier.

If it had been modern Trek, the cure for the madness would be to "reconfigure the dorsal emitter array to cause dissolution of cellular permeability on a subquantum scale.......

 

And you wouldn't have the chief engineer getting wasted during a crisis.

 

Kinda like how Khan saves a dying kid at the start of the movie foreshadows that his blood MIGHT have some unusual properties?

 

Not in the least.

But having Khan in the movie at all is stupid beyond all belief anyway.

 

Why?

it is not REMOTELY unreasonable that in a different timeline, someone other than Kirk might have been the first to find the Botany Bay; in's not remotely unreasonable to believe that if the right people had found it, Section 31 would attempt to co-op this resource; it's not unreasonable at all that such machinations would backfire.


What's stupid about it from a storytelling point of view?

 

The character of Khan in "The Wrath of Khan" worked well because of the history of the character with Kirk and the Enterprise crew. Explained VERY briefly in the movie by Khan himself, he has massive, ample reason to hate Kirk and go for revenge.

"Khan" in "Into Darkness has none of that history. He is just a generic bad guy pulled out by the writers and given the "Khan" monicker to remind people that the second Star Trek movie was widely considered the best by fans.