Pine: Kirk Earns Captain’s Chair In Star Trek Into Darkness + Talks Abrams Tinkering, Cumberbatch Scene & more | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Pine: Kirk Earns Captain’s Chair In Star Trek Into Darkness + Talks Abrams Tinkering, Cumberbatch Scene & more November 16, 2012

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

As we reported yesterday, Chris Pine was in the UK to do press and attend the premiere of Rise of the Guardians. Of course Pine ended up talking about Star Trek Into Darkness as well. We have collected quotes from Pine talking about Kirk’s journey, Benedict Cumberbatch, JJ Abrams and more. See the quotes below along with video and photos of Pine at the premiere as well.  

 

Chris Pine Talks Star Trek Into Darkness

Here are a collection of quotes about Star Trek Into Darkness from Chris Pine from yesterday doing press and attending the premiere of Rise of the Guardians.

KTLA

The story is huge in terms of scope and scale and story it is a lot bigger than the first. It is going to be IMAX. Bendedict Cumberbatch as the evil bad guy. I think there is a lot of fun stuff.

Red Carpet News

Kirk is fun because he is a brash, cocky, bull-headed kind of guy. I think the journey he goes on in this new film is a lot about – the first one was about getting the chair and the second one is about earning it. And I think that is a big part of his journey.

HeyYouGuys.co.uk

Benedict [Cumberbatch] is such an incredible talent. He did some work in the new Trek that will blow people away.

9 News TX

JJ will be constantly tinkering with [Star Trek] until the last minute

Radio Times

“There’s one scene in [Star Trek Into Darkness] that’s like, you know… in all kinds of heavy science fiction there’s got to be the exposition scene where it’s like, what the hell’s going on? It’s a really, really, really hard scene. Not for me, for Benedict – and watching him handle that and to make something that I think, on paper, could have been a death trap for an actor and to see how he [deals with it]…"

Photos of Chris

Thanks to @trekmovie Twitter followers who shared links to Pine interviews. If you see more Pine interviews where he talks Trek send those in to tips@trekmovie.com.

Comments

1. Basement Blogger - November 16, 2012

Well, let’s hope Star Trek Into Darkness is deeper and smarter than the first one. I liked Star Trek 2009 but it felt like Star Wars. Let’s see a more mature Kirk and a wiser Spock. And hopefully there will be more McCoy.

2. Chris Doohan - November 16, 2012

I like this site, it’s exciting.

3. Clinton - November 16, 2012

May 2013 seems soooooo far away!

4. rm10019 - November 16, 2012

2 – lol nice :) Love the job Pine did and can’t wait for the film.

5. efren - November 16, 2012

hope the comics are canon as well since he did missions already

6. Mad Man - November 16, 2012

One of the biggest gripes with the first Abrams Trek was how quickly Kirk became a Captain. It wasn’t realistic. I hope there is some “damage control” in this next film which offers some explanation on how that happened. Pine suggested that Kirk “earns” the chair, but I would hope there is actual explanation on that in the film.

7. Mr Phil - November 16, 2012

“Benedict Cumberbatch as the evil bad guy.”

Evil bad guy. Double negative – so he plays a good guy?
;-)

8. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 16, 2012

1. Basement Blogger

I never saw the Star Wars comparrison then and still don’t. Never understood why people say that. I see nothing of Star Wars in Trek.

The only way I would say Star Wars in the same sentence is to say that without Star Trek, Star Wars wouldn’t have existed. And if it wasn’t for Star Wars, we would have never had Star Trek movies. And now I can add… if it wasn’t for the 09 Trek movie, I don’t think there would be a new Star Wars Trilogy. But that’s my opinion.

9. (the real) Montreal_Paul - November 16, 2012

7. Mr Phil

Hmmm… you may have something. A good guy that is now bad. Who could that be? ;)

10. Vger23 - November 16, 2012

There’s something so original and provocative about comparing the last film to the “Star Wars” franchise. I mean, wow! I’ve never heard THAT one before.

11. Jack - November 16, 2012

2. Lol, Mr. Doohan.

So, are you in this one too? We won’t tell anyone…. ;)

12. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 16, 2012

I can’t watch the last two videos because some news broadcasters are talking over Chris. You see him but don’t hear anything he is saying.
What is going on? I had to go out of this site in order to turn off the sound to the video.

Kirk “brash, cocky and bull-headed”? Gee, is there anything nice that Chris could say about the character? Perhaps, even say something original, instead of seeming to repeat what everyone/anyone else has already said many times about this character. Sorry, Chris – but hey, come on!…

Maybe one could describe him as being inexperienced, but driven – out of desire to see justice done; being aware that time is of the essence and that waiting could be more disastrous for all than going ahead, even if not all relevant information is available; protective, insightful and intuitive.

I dunno – people seem to have such a negative attitude toward this young Kirk.

13. Jack - November 16, 2012

8. i don’t get the Star Wars comparison either. Okay, maybe warp’s a little like hyperspace (which makes more sense than an explosion of rainbows, or a really slow, awkwardly stretching ship) and they wisely replaces phaser beams with bolts (dodging a slow, animated beam which comes out of the phaser at a weird angle always seemed odd to me). And there were aliens and creatures — which Trek should have (even TOS tried this with its low budget). And the FX were really good.

It looked great, it was fun, it had heart, suspense and thrills. It got Starfleet right. I don’t see how any of these are bad things.

14. Captain Otter - November 16, 2012

I didn’t see the Star Wars comparison either. Plot-wise, red matter wasn’t a well thought out or even remotely plausible MacGuffin. But as an origin tale, it served its purpose and I really enjoyed it. The fact that the plot device this time around is being described as “heavy sci-fi” is encouraging too. The 2009 effort was a good Trek movie. I’m hoping Into Darkness is truly great.

15. Peter Loader - November 16, 2012

It’s just a movie folks… it will be as faced paced as the first… and there definitely won’t be any explanations about why Kirk was made Captain… he saved the Earth… that’s the least they could have done!

As for Spock. the man’s more conflicted now and not in full control of his emotions, this makes his character more appealing than boring prime-time Spock.

Enjoy the movie!

16. Platitude - November 16, 2012

@2 = LOL

Getting excited for this movie!

17. NuFan - November 16, 2012

The Star Wars comparisons are a good thing that helps to sell more tickets. And it works whether it is actually true or not.

Notice that as of this week, Paramount is still making JJ say that his movies are not for trekkies on all his interviews. Trekkies hate that, but too bad because trekkies are bad news in almost every culture.

You have to say what you have to say. It’s just business.

18. T'Cal - November 16, 2012

I never saw the comparisons with SW either. Let’s hope this one is deeper than the last. The last one was good, but it could’ve been great. This one has the potential to be great as well. BC is a welcome addition as he is more than capable of playing an intense and complicated character if Sherlock is any indication. Can’t wait!

19. Victor Hugo - November 16, 2012

There´s Exploring in Star Wars, there´s Battle in Star Trek, so, yeah, it´s all related. :)

the only thing missing is the Enterprise turning into a big Autobot :)

20. filmboy - November 16, 2012

@13.

I agree with your argument and feel all your points about the movie show it is firmly a Star Trek movie. However, I can also see how some may feel that Trek 09 was alot like Star Wars, particularly Episode IV. Let me explain.

Ok, first you have a super weapon (the Narada) that attacks a ship deep in space. You have the captain of that ship rather violently killed after being questioned by the main villain and buying time for others with his sacrfice. You have valuable cargo being jettisoned from the ship before it is destroyed or captured. (The droids in Star Wars, Kirk and his mother in Trek.) This cargo is vital to the success of the heroes at the end of the film.

Now, you have a farm boy who goes to a bar, populated by strange creatures. He had no father growing up and was raised by a surrogate father. He knows he was meant for more and stares off into the distance deeply longing to leave his boring home and venture elsewhere. JJ even apes the Luke two suns scene from Star Wars by having Krik stare off at the Enterprise being built, a look of longing on his face.

There is a wise mentor figure who sets the hero on his journey (Obi Wan in Star Wars, Pike in Star Trek). You have the farm boy hero answer the call and journey on a ship to train to become like the wise mentor figure. Along the way he meets a gruff rogue (Han in Star Wars, Mccoy here).

The super weapon destroys a planet important to one of the main characters and as a result kills the parent or parents of that character. Then disappears on to it’s next target. (Vulcan here and Alderaan with Star Wars).

Then there is the ending. The hero (Spock in this case) is facing certain destruction at the hands of the villain, but suddenly is saved by a vessel appearing at just the right moment, one that rids the hero of the threat and allows him to continue on his course to destroy the super weapon.

The day is saved, super weapon destroyed. The farm boy is now a full fledged hero and is awarded with a grand ceremony to celebrate it. He faces the crowd to find cheering masses. The farm boy has attained his true destiny. His mentor is proud and there is the promise that said mentor will be there to help the farm boy hero in future adventures.

Now that is just a surface reading of Trek 09. Of course there could be more Star Wars influences on the film. Trek 09 certainly isn’t Episode IV. But it does share alot of similarities to that film. In the end, I still think it is more Trek than Wars and I like the film a great deal.

21. Diego Simão Rzatk - November 16, 2012

At trek ink outgoing series, one of the history’s talks about Kirk earning his chair. And this is on Gary Michel history. Remember, the Boborci already said (if I remember well), outgoing series have clues about the new movie.

Maybe is just a coincidence on words of Chris Pine. But who knows?

And after that’s photos from the scene On the villain and Spock, I already are suspicios about Gary Michel like villain.

22. Dee - lvs moon' surface - November 16, 2012

AWW … Captain Fine!!! ;-) :-)

The audio from the interview with Chris Pine about Benedict Cumberbatch can be heard on the link below, I think this isn’t in the article of radiotimes … I hope there is no problem posting the link here!

http://www.filmchronicles.com/chris-pine-talks-star-trek-into-darkness/

23. Caesar - November 16, 2012

His collar is terrible.

24. THX-1138 - November 16, 2012

First point:

filmboy, you are spot on. For all the folks that haven’t seen the comparisons between Trek 09 and Star Wars, there it is, laid out for you. Plot-point wise the similarities are there.

Second point:

I, and I believe others, are getting a little tired of this Trekkie bashing. NuFan, I take some umbrage with your statement that Trekkies are bad news. How short-sighted of you. If it weren’t for Trekkies, i.e. people like Bjo Trimble and countless others, you wouldn’t have a NuTrek movie or sequel to enjoy. When the show faced cancellation after the second season Bjo helped to save it for a third. When it finally did get cancelled, she along with Trekkies (who were legion), kept the heart beating as-it-were. By not allowing Star Trek to die and go away it was resuscitated into TAS and the movie series, which led to TNG and the rest of the shows that followed. And without all that there would absolutely be no JJ Abrams Star Trek.

So you can thank all of us bad news canon worshipping Trekkies for sticking with a cancelled series from the 60’s long enough for you to have your Star Trek movies today.

25. Chris Doohan - November 16, 2012

11 Jack

Promise? I wish I could tell you I was :)

26. Phil - November 16, 2012

Seems like everytime Pine speaks of Star Trek, he reinforces that Kirk as fratboy image. Please stop.

27. Joe Schmoe - November 16, 2012

What a lame shirt. Who has a horizontal collar?

28. Punkspocker - November 16, 2012

It’s all perfect. Every bit of Into Darkness is going to be perfect. Cast, crew, writers, director, everthing. I’m a fortysomething year old fan and this new reboot makes me feel 10 again. It’s exciting! Perfect!

29. I'm Dead Jim! - November 16, 2012

@ 25 My god, man! There’s gottta be a Doohan on board!

30. Enterprisingguy - November 16, 2012

#25- Chris Doohan:

But can you tell us you AREN’T in it either?

Hmmm?

31. cpelc - November 16, 2012

I was looking at the comic covers for Countdown to Darkness and noticed that they appeared to feature a starfleet delta in the middle like the last prequel comics did. But after trying to line up the Jan (kirk) and Feb (Uhura) issues they don’t.

I mean it’s close but the size is off and the command insignia is missing. The thing that appears to be the most revealing is the way the stars or “darkness” of space is bleeding through the characters. Whether this is symbolic or just artistic license is yet to be determined.

32. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 16, 2012

Actors like Chris Pine get to model the latest fashion trends. Some of them can look very good, others not so good and still others totally atrocious. I guess it comes back to taste and also what people are used to seeing being worn.

Bear in mind, James Kirk was a farmboy long before Luke Skywalker was even thought of…

I am sick of hearing the comparisons made between Star Trek 09 story and the Star Wars movies. If I wanted to see comparisons, I would watch the Star Wars movies, but I have not watched any SW movie in a while. This is a (Star) Trekmovie site, not a Wars in sight – thank god!

Thanks, Dee, for the link. Even though the interview with Chris Pine is over, I am still hearing everything else coming through my computer speakers. This is what was happening before with the other link that Anthony posted – the audio does not stop and even when I turn off the sound and speakers, I can still hear a muted form of the radio programme coming through what seems like the hard drive. As soon as I turn on the audio again, I get these US radio stations coming through my Auckland, NZ computer audio system. This has never happened before, until today.

My son deleted a cache and it is gone. I guess I won’t be able to hear the interview with Chris Pine again.

33. DarthDogg - November 16, 2012

#15

So prime Spock is Boring now…..LOL, ha, ha, ha. OK right. U do realize that Nimoy made that movie. he gave it the wieght and credability the movie desperatly needed….Boring? WTF. Nimoys Spock entertained for decades. Show some respect!

34. Jim, London - November 16, 2012

Two steps from hell doing the trailer music again?

35. ThOmAs - November 16, 2012

Look out, the trekkers are giving fashion advice now!

36. Ted C - November 16, 2012

It was leaked yesterday that Cumberbatch is playing a Triskelion. The heavy scene may be when he becomes just a brain. That would explain the rumor that Charlize Theron has a cameo as Tamoon.

37. Ted C - November 16, 2012

@ 20, I thought this was a place to post short comments not write an essay.

38. Graham - November 16, 2012

13. Jack

4 Starfleet members beating up 1 guy (Kirk) because he spoke to a Uhuru, yeah they got Starleet spot on there.

The reason this film is like Star wars is that is its entertaining nonsense.

39. Dee - lvs moon' surface - November 16, 2012

#32. Keachick

Chris Pine is wearing Ralph Lauren Purple Label, again… I think the shirt very interesting, makes the suit look more “cool”… I liked it … and CP has said he has people who help him choose clothes when he goes to the red carpet … in this case blue carpet!

AWESOME!!! ;-) :-)

40. CmdrR - November 16, 2012

KTLA – Asking the questions no one else would think of.

Chris looks like he needs more sleep. It must be great in one way to have 3 BIG irons in the fire, but it’s gotta be killer to fulfill the “promotion” aspect of his contract.

In the 60’s, Trek was groovy.
In ’79, Kirk wore lycra and disco hair.
In ’86 Scotty saved the whales.
In ’91, the Enterprise crew explored Glasnost.
Why are you shocked that Trek dips into Star Wars at a time when that franchise is preparing for a relaunch? Trek is a template. And a damned good one. It will always reflect some of the cultural influences of its time.

41. CmdrR - November 16, 2012

Chris Doohan — tell the truth, what did the ST:TMP uni’s really smell like?

42. thomas vinelli - November 16, 2012

@20…but this is about the chicken & the egg and what came first. Trek came first so i would say SW dipped into Trek. I’m sure at the time Trek took from other SCI FI of the past. Its bound to happen. I didn’t think Trek 2009 had a SW feel to it. In fact i always felt SW was a lot of fun , Trek went for the juggler.

43. District13 - November 16, 2012

In reference to the first film — Kirk “becoming captain too quick” … I used to have a problem with that.

Then I became an officer in the USCG.

I know its just a movie, but to ease some of you who want perfection – there are instances in the real military when an officer’s position is referred to as “Captain” when they are not in fact a Captain by rank.

For example, many Coast Guard stations are commanded by a Commander or Lt. Cmdr, but that officer is referred to as the “Captain” of the station. So that is my rationalization for what transpired in Star Trek 2009. Kirk was “Captain” of the ship, but his rank was still what would have been a cadet/midshipman if he was still in the academy?

44. Yammer - November 16, 2012

@43

I think he was bearing the two and a half braids on his sleeve at the end…they brevetted him at minimum and they may have given him the full bump because of how well he conceived and executed what amounts to saving pretty much the Federation minus Vulcan, partly for PR reasons and mostly because he clearly demonstrated command virtues.

However he obviously did not have the time to really learn how to RUN a ship…he never served his time as a department head or exec… I would imagine that this created friction and disgruntlement around Starfleet. A plot point worth exploring on screen, or mere fanboy wankage?

45. JRT! - November 17, 2012

@30

Oh I’ve asked Mr.Doohan the same question five or six times now,lol,in different threads here,but he never actually replied.

Till he confirms or denies it,I’m gonna think yes and hope for the best,LOL!

Just REALLY hope the trailer will be good and Khan is not the villain,lol!

Have fun y’all!

J-R!

46. chrisfawkes.com - November 17, 2012

Sounds like a good journey. Perhaps the three films will allow us to feel that the characters evolve to where we first met them on the original series.

The undying loyalty that Spock has for Kirk in particular.

I think Some misunderstood the Dark Knight Rises to be the end of Batman’s career whereas it was about getting a new beginning with a partner. The franchise is in a position to move forward just under a different creative team.

No doubt this is what will happen with Trek.

47. CZ - November 17, 2012

@20 Totally agree with you and a note to all about ST and SW: Money if they screen any of the SW movies in Black and White and get all of us to see them, they will do it. To JJ and others it does not matter if the two movies are the same but with new players it just about money, so that’s not cool but we see them and pay for it and we will pay again and again. If Disney remakes A NEW HOPE again with a black actor playing Luke. We would all go to see it, so stop it and just enjoy Khan as a nice guy.

But I think the bad guy in into darkness is the Horta, does the volcano seen.

48. JRT! - November 17, 2012

Sorry,but I won’t enjoy Khan as a nice guy. Of course I’ll see the movie,probably several times,but my dissapointment if it’s Khan will just dampen my enjoyment a little bit i’ll enjoy it,just not as much since I was hoping for something more original. But that’s just me,lol! I’m sure it’ll be a great movie! Keep Trekkin’! J-R!

49. Optimistic Doodle - November 17, 2012

Despite not appearing in the 1st STID-clip and general, dominant focus on the Spock character, this actor keeps his cool :-)

50. Phil - November 17, 2012

@43. Yeah, I think we know that a commander can be captain of a ship. My understanding, though is that larger ships or flagships will have a full captain at the helm, not a cadet who was being brought up on charges. Let’s not forget that Enterprise was identified as being the new flagship of the fleet. Anyway, this has been beat to death on these boards, those who want to believe it makes sense will believe what they want, those of us who know it’s foolish will ignore it.

51. Banned - November 17, 2012

deleted by admin

52. Hat Rick - November 17, 2012

Everyone is focused on Chris Pine in this thread, which is as it should be. But I want to mention just in passing that Sam Rubin is a gift to entertainment reporting. I.e., with every report, with his oh-so-serious demeanor combined with breathless enthusiasm, he looks as though he had just rushed in from covering a Major Story just to give us the Breaking News of the Century, which is usually some kind of celebrity interview or movie opening. He is priceless and such fun to watch.

So if he seems odd while Chris Pine joins him in Glorious HD, he’s not. He’s Sam Rubin. And we like him that way.

53. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 17, 2012

Honestly, what ruins every outfit and makes any man look less than he might be is the TIE. Lose the ties, Chris!

Why, oh why, must men wear ties? The only people that ties actually look kinda OK on are boys. Therefore, I would describe ties as more like children’s wear (not the best or coolest kind either). Eventually, boys have to grow into men and therefore lose childish wear, especially ties.

TIES are the ultimate fashion/clothing abomination!

The fact that some places like schools also insist that girls wear ties as part of a uniform is even worse…

54. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 17, 2012

Chris mentioned Mikhail Baryschnikov being in the new Jack Ryan movie. Does he mean the Russian ballet dancer who defected from the Soviet Union in the late 1970’s?

I cannot see Baryschnikov’s name in the full Jack Ryan cast/crew list on IMDb. Perhaps the dancer cum actor is a late comer to the movie. Anyway, interesting and cool…

55. Disinvited - November 17, 2012

#52. Hat Rick

And Sam’s good with numbers too! To paraphrase a line written for a baby dinosaur: “Gotta love him!”

56. Red Dead RYANNE - November 17, 2012

Oh no I see my future wife Princess Rose is back at it again with the Chris Pine stalking.

57. Hat Rick - November 17, 2012

@ 55 (Disinvited), he is fun for sure. Didn’t know about the numbers thing, but wouldn’t surprise me.

58. ralph pinheiro - November 17, 2012

what does exposition scene mean?

59. Disinvited - November 17, 2012

#57. Hat Rick

If I recall, both his parents were mathematicians and he admits to coming away from that with a good head for numbers.

60. Hat Rick - November 17, 2012

@Disinvited (59), I wouldn’t be surprised. He’s very eloquent and quick-witted, so intelligence is not a problem for Sam. Must come in handy when it comes to box office takes.

61. dswynne - November 17, 2012

I just want to see Pine’s Kirk be able to fight, and I especially want to see his Kirk use the classic “Double-Fist Smash to the Back” maneuver…

62. chrisfawkes.com - November 17, 2012

@53 Seriously?

I just spent $200 on a tie to add to my collection. Do you think women generally agree with you on that?

63. pilotfred - November 18, 2012

i also had a problem with kirk becoming captain to soon, however how many ship was lost on vulcan? and a fleet of ship was also destoryed(dont recall where) it might be that there are not many captains left and given kirk is smart ! i know still a push

64. Optimistic Doodle - November 18, 2012

Oops, Spock into darkness?

http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/11/18/MAJOR-RUMOR-Zachary-Quinto-May-Not-Return-as-Mr-Spock-After-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-.shtml

65. pilotftred - November 18, 2012

#61
yeah me to,nice

66. Dee - lvs moon' surface - November 18, 2012

#64. Optimistic Doodle

Well…

Speculation ahead:

– maybe he knows there will not be a third film

– Spock dies in STID

– ZQ is tired of Spock and say goodbye

– or just a rumor one more time on trekweb… ;-) :-)

67. Optimistic Doodle - November 18, 2012

Or smart marketing ;-)
Yep, you’re right.

68. FinnGoDo - November 18, 2012

@8

“if it wasn’t for the 09 Trek movie, I don’t think there would be a new Star Wars Trilogy. ”

No way. Star Wars is a money maker whether Star Trek 2009 was made or not. If that film didn’t happen, there’s no doubt in my mind that new Star Wars films would still go forward. Not only that, John Carter which is oftenly compared to Star Wars failed miserably at Disney yet they still went after the Star Wars property with the intention of making films.

Disney didn’t look at how well Star Trek did when it purchased it Star Wars. It looked at a spreadsheet that said DVD and Merchandise make XYZ billions of dollars.

69. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 18, 2012

#62 – Probably not, but I have come to realize that I don’t always think or see a lot of things the way many other people do… for better or worse, for me.

70. Basement Blogger - November 18, 2012

@ 8

The Star Wars influence on Star Trek 2009

Here’s the evidence that there’s a Star Wars influence on Star Trek 2009.

1. Disc One Star Trek 2009 DVD; the documentary “A New Vision.”

There’s a section called “WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM STAR WARS HERE?” The filmmakers admired the pacing of Star Wars.

2. J.J. Abrams- He thought Star Trek, the TV series was “a little talky.” Entertainment Weekly, May 8, 2009, pg. 30. Abrams is a Star Wars guy. EW, Oct. 24, 2008, pg. 29.

Hence the pacing is more like Star Wars. The 2009 film doesn’t breathe. For example, take a look at the exciting and emotional opening. It’s followed by another action sequence of Kirk driving a car over a cliff.

3. Simplistic villain. Nero is more or less a mustache twirling type of villain like Darth Vader. We don’t know why he wants to destroy all the Federation planets for trying to help Romulus! Now if you read the excellent graphic novel, “Countdown” you will get the motive but that should be in the movie.

4. Check out the commentary during the phaser fight aboard the Narada. Lindelof notes that it’s just like the laser fight in Star Wars.

5. Check out filmboy’s excellent comparison in @ 20.

Look, I like the 2009 movie. But I want a smarter film. And the Supreme Court has promised a deeper movie. A smart blockbuster is possible. See The Dark Knight and Inception. So I’m looking forward to Star Trek 2013.

71. Decker - November 19, 2012

Lens Flare played by Brian Dennehy.

72. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 19, 2012

“Hence the pacing is more like Star Wars. The 2009 film doesn’t breathe. For example, take a look at the exciting and emotional opening. It’s followed by another action sequence of Kirk driving a car over a cliff.”

Why does everything have to be compared with Star Wars just because, God help JJ Abrams, he mentioned that he had been a Star Wars fan as a kid? I’m not there’s an American kid who hasn’t been a Star Wars fan…oh never mind…sigh

I could not disagree more with the above viewpoint. Perhaps, at other points in the movie, a slower pace, a breather may have worked better for the movie overall, but not at this particular point in the movie.

All the other points have been discussed, debated almost verbatim. Knowing everything about the intentions of a villain is not necessary in this case nor even realistic. It is the not-knowing that often gives an adversary the upperhand.

73. Basement Blogger - November 19, 2012

@ 72

Rose aka Keachick,

Sigh.

You ignore the evidence I cited. Grab the DVD and watch the making of documentary. The first section is called, ““WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM STAR WARS HERE?” Look at the Entertainment Weekly interviews. Abrams wanted a more visceral film like Star Wars. That’s not bad. But the 2009 film was not as smart as another 2009 science fiction film called District 9. Star Trek has stood for smart science fiction for years. See The City on the Edge of Forever, The Doomsday Machine, Star Trek IV, etc, etc. Star Wars was good entertainment but it’s not science fiction. It’s fantasy.

Keachick then says this,

“Knowing everything about the intentions of a villain is not necessary in this case nor even realistic. It is the not-knowing that often gives an adversary the upperhand.”

You might like mustache twirling villains but I find them uninteresting. Because a well written villain has motivations. Star Trek’s best villains were the ones who had motivations and were three dimensional. Khan’s motives were first to conquer since he was a superhuman. Later it was revenger. The Borg believe they improve all races by assimilating them and sharing the collective knowledge. I believe Star Trek should strive for quality and be something more than cartoon depictions of good vs. evil. After all it is a franchise that asks us to think. It can teach us tolerance. Maybe the villain is not a villain but something that is misunderstood. See “The Devil In the Dark” and Star Trek IV.

74. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 19, 2012

#73 – I am well aware of how JJ Abrams wanted to make Star Trek a more visceral experience for people. He gave Star Wars as an example of what he meant. I have not ignored anything. I can also recall an interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman on the Star Trek 09 two DVD set where they say that the original series was like classical music and they wanted to give it a little rock’n’roll (or something to that effect).

I don’t agree that the episodes and films you mention are any smarter or better than Star Trek 09. I have tried to watch District 9 but I cannot get into it. I am sure it is good but I don’t like it. Anyway, why is it necessarily better science fiction (as opposed to science fantasy) than the examples you have given?

The truth is most of what Star Trek has (from TOS onwards) is more in the realm of fantasy – like warp drive (how is that more scientific than SW hyperdrive?), transporters (teleportation spoken of in other sci-fi shows), space ships providing a normal gravitational environment suitable for earthborne life (ST, SW, SG, DrWho…), replicators… Most scientists do not know achieving warp drive is possible, transporters also – at the moment it all sits within the realm of fantasy, irrespective of the technobabble titles various writers choose to call this fantastical technology.

“You might like mustache twirling villains but I find them uninteresting.”

I intimated nothing of the sort. The reality is that most people who are our adversaries are motivated by very much the same things as are our heroes. What is of greater interest and importance is how our heroes respond to threats of various kinds.

anyway, gotta go. Got son on my back to get me to do something good for myself…ugh…:)

75. Basement Blogger - November 20, 2012

@ 74

I note that my response to your post was deleted. That’s been happening to people and if it’s something I’ve said, the moderator hasn’t said anything. But I’ll try to keep my post short.

Rose aka Keachick says,

“I don’t agree that the episodes and films you mention are any smarter or better than Star Trek 09. I have tried to watch District 9 but I cannot get into it. I am sure it is good but I don’t like it. Anyway, why is it necessarily better science fiction (as opposed to science fantasy) than the examples you have given?”

Here’s my answer. Those great episodes of Star Trek did what great science fiction does. They ask you to think. For example, think about what science fiction writer Norman Spinrad was saying in TOS “The Doomsday Machine.’ The greatest science fiction movie of all time was 2001: A Space Odyssey. Think about what Kubrick and Clarke were saying.

As far as the rest of your post where you question the science in Star Trek, you could not be anymore short sighted. First, a lot of Star Trek is speculative. But there’s usually a basis in science. They’ve hit on trends. Scanning. See MRI. Communicator. See cell phone. In fact, the cell phone was inspired by the communicator.

On warp drive, it’s probably the most realistic way of faster than light travel. Link. NASA is looking into it. On transporters, yeah, not likely. But scientists don’t eliminate the prospect. And quantum information has been transported. Don’t ask me about that one. I’m a blogger not a physicist.

Star Trek has had science advisors. See Andre Bormanis.

1. Warp drive. Scientists are actually thinking about making it work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

2. Teleporation; not feasible but has happened with science regarding quantum information
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-17/world/aust.startrek_1_atoms-computer-speeds-laser-beam?_s=PM:asiapcf

76. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 21, 2012

#75 Basement Blogger –

On the scientific front, yes – Star Trek did/does posit possible scientific outcomes and we have seen examples of those things that were in TOS, which people at the time thought weren’t likely at all, have now come to pass. In fact, I suspect in the area of communications technology, ie communicators, today cellphones are far better than anything Kirk got to use in TOS. However, when it comes to transporter and warp drive technologies as seen in Star Trek, they sit more within the realm of science fantasy as opposed to fiction, based on certain facts.

Think the CSI programmes. They are fictional programmes, however, the forensics technology they talk about is not fiction. The only fictional aspect that people actually working in criminal forensics do say is false is the apparent speed that the characters in the CSI programmes are able to get results. In reality, it can take much longer to get results from some tests, like some DNA testing etc.

This does not mean that scientists should not work on trying to see if the Star Trek technology may not be possible in the future. We never know when a major breakthrough could happen…

I shall deal with the second part of our discussion re how villains are written… in another post. Gotta go, again…:(

77. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 21, 2012

“You might like mustache twirling villains but I find them uninteresting. Because a well written villain has motivations. Star Trek’s best villains were the ones who had motivations and were three dimensional.”

I did not intimate that I liked “mustache twirling villains” at all. The fact is – Nero did have motives and his intentions and reasons were told in Star Trek 09 movie. One did/does not have to read any countdown comic or other to understand where Nero was coming from. If, after just watching the movie a few times, the reasons were not apparent, well, then I just do not know what to say. There are at least three places in the film where Nero revealed himself or was explained – the two main ones being when he was torturing Captain Pike and one where prime Spock mind-melded with Kirk.

What I do find a bit astonishing is the statement you made which I have quoted above. It is not the first time I have read such a viewpoint. The question I do have to ask is – how much do most of us actually know about the lives, motivations and profoundly held beliefs of most of whom we would call villains in our world today? Take Osama Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? Pol Pot? Kruschev and Fidel Castro?
Take Adolf Hitler, during the second world war, while millions were fighting and dying?

We can always learn a lot more in hindsight. While Americans in their thousands cheered in the streets when they heard that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, I wonder how many knew that he had a wife (I’m not sure if he had more than one wife – quite legal in some Islamic countries) and young children with him…

Now, I am not saying for an instant, that the names I mentioned were not culpable for some horrific (war) crimes. What Pol Pot and his henchmen did to fellow Cambodians is really quite unspeakable and of course, we all know about Hitler…

During WW2 – All people knew was that this Hitler fellow with a funny mustache was a really bad guy and that all patriotic young men should sign and go fight and kill “Geri” for King and Country. As history tells us, had the Allies not done what they did, then Hitler and those who follow in his footsteps may have been able far more damage than they already done.

However, my real point is that most people really don’t much, if anything, about the people governments etc tell us are our enemies…
I suspect that people seeing villains doing their thing in movies actually know more about who they are and what their motivations are than what is known about the world’s real life *villains*.

This is why I do not understand your statement.
Why do I, as a filmgoer, interested in seeing what my fictional protagonist heroes do and how they cope, have to know more than the basics about a fictional villain they are fighting?

78. Basement Blogger - November 21, 2012

@ 77

Keachick makes this statement,

“During WW2 – All people knew was that this Hitler fellow with a funny mustache was a really bad guy and that all patriotic young men should sign and go fight and kill “Geri” for King and Country. As history tells us, had the Allies not done what they did, then Hitler and those who follow in his footsteps may have been able far more damage than they already done.”

Wow. I hope you don’t teach history. Hitler tried to overthrow the German government with the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Two years later he published a book which detailed his philosophy called “Mein Kampf” which espoused antisemitism After Hitler took power and became a dictator in 1934, there was the incident called “The Night of the Broken Glass.” In coordinated attacks Nazis destroyed Jewish businesses, killed Jews and incarcerated thousands. Link. There were other incidents of where Hitler was coming from but that is one of the more famous ones.

So this man with a funny mustache, telegraphed his motives. We knew what Hitler was about before World War II started. You would have to be intellectually blind not to realize that if Hitler took over the world, that Jews and non-whites would have been oppressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_broken_glass

79. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 22, 2012

History may tell us all this now about Adolf Hitler and if you are a student of politics, current affairs, history, then it is quite likely you would know all of this. However, I am not talking about people who have a real interest in following up on the current affairs/politics of their day and can and will do the research, read the appropriate books on a given topic –

I am talking about ordinary people who may little or no interest in politics, who often work long hours in factories, offices, and here in NZ, in the time of WW2 on farms where it was even hard to get good radio reception, if any, and yet these young men of farmers still joined the Allies to fight the “Geri”. Most historians, I think, consider that what brought about WW1 was pathetic (I can’t think of a better word), and yet thousands of men died and the world, for the first time, saw the horrors of trench warfare. Few people knew then what and why they were fighting – they were told by men in authority that they were needed to fight a deadly enemy and the young men and their families trusted what they were told. My grandfather was one of those young men. His face was injured and he had no feeling on one side of his face. The scars were with him his entire life.

Basement Blogger – There is history and then there is history…

I believe that Jewish people living within the USA at the beginning of WW2, when Britain declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland in 1939, were urging the US Government to help stop what they heard was happening to their people in Germany, by helping Britain and its allies (Canada, NZ, Australia…) to bring down Hitler. It took until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour two years later before the US would gets its feet a bit *wet/bloody*… I am sure many of the US politicians, including the President, and their advisers, knew of Hitler’s real intentions and yet…I guess there is little more to be said.

80. Basement Blogger - November 22, 2012

@ 79

Sigh. Please. Your post number 77 made a bunch of ridiculous statements. Your whole point was that when it comes to villains, we don’t need to know their motivations. For example, you make this ludicrous statement from 77.

“The question I do have to ask is – how much do most of us actually know about the lives, motivations and profoundly held beliefs of most of whom we would call villains in our world today? Take Osama Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? Pol Pot? Kruschev and Fidel Castro?
Take Adolf Hitler, during the second world war, while millions were fighting and dying?”

Remarkable statement for your lack of knowledge. For example, Bin Laden hated the U.S. for its alleged oppression of Muslims and his belief in the need for a fundamentalist Muslim world. Link.

I remember how you told me to shut up. Well, Keachick, you should try reading about things before you post statements that frankly are ill informed.

Some research for you regarding Bin Laden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

81. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 22, 2012

Basement Blogger – you have not read a single word I have said. I have not posted anything that is “ill informed”. I have been pointing out that I suspect the ordinary joe-blogg who goes to the cinema probably has less idea of the who’s, how’s and why’s of what is happening in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, you name any African country etc, than they would have known about Nero.

How well informed do you believe most people are about current events when it comes to politics etc in places like the Middle East, Africa, Europe, of Western allies and enemies? My contention is that most would not know a lot about any of it…they get their news through newspaper bites, television bites, radio bites, if anything at all. Some people only bother with the sports section…

I was not talking about what I, Rose/Keachick, do or don’t know. I was talking about the general population. Most people only concern themselves with what is immediately important to them and their immediate family. Many do not necessarily have much time, energy or interest for much beyond their own. This is just how it is and always has been.

Therefore, why should film goers be so concerned that they have not been told by the movie writers all the motivations, beliefs, drives etc of a fictional villain? It is great if the writers are able to give a good exposition without holding up the main plot and focus of the story (which, in Star Trek’s case, should be about the protagonists Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al), but not totally necessary. This is for the reasons that I have given in my other posts which you have dismissed.

No, I am not as well-informed as I should be about Osama Bin Laden or any number of people affecting our world today, for good or ill. I know it and it bothers me that I sometimes couldn’t really give a stuff. However, even such a notion as I have written would not even occur to many people. I am not being nasty or critical – I am just stating things as I have observed.

82. Basement Blogger - November 23, 2012

@ 81

Keachick,

I have read what you have said. And once it was pointed out how ill informed it was, you changed it to mean what you just said in post 81. I mean why go on such an insane tangent? And we have gone full circle. So I will answer the question you posed here. and it’s basically the same idea posted in 72. :

“Therefore, why should film goers be so concerned that they have not been told by the movie writers all the motivations, beliefs, drives etc of a fictional villain?”

Okay, cartoon villains have no motivations. They’re just bad. If you as a moviegoer want that experience then watch a cartoon. BUT GREAT SCIENCE FICTION ASKS YOU TO THINK.

We should expect more from Star Trek than simple stories of good versus evil. I mean you should know that if you watch the show. You have watched TOS, TNG, and DS9?

But if you haven’t watched the show, let me use a TOS example to explain how great science fiction works. In the episode, “The Devil in the Dark”, miners were killed by the Horta. Which resembled a rock like monster. Now, if this were a simple story of good versus evil, then the monster is evil. You might like that.

But this is Star Trek. There are big ideas in the franchise. One of them is tolerance. Another is understanding. We find out that the Horta was protecting its eggs from the miners. It was not the monster that the humans thought it was. You see life is not black and white. The best Star Trek episodes were the ones that asked you to think. So go watch some Star Trek and use your brain. Think.

83. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 23, 2012

This is what I actually wrote. I changed NOTHING. I asked the same question again in my later posts and gave reasons for why I asked the question in the first place.

#77 -“What I do find a bit astonishing is the statement you made which I have quoted above. It is not the first time I have read such a viewpoint. The question I do have to ask is – how much do most of us actually know about the lives, motivations and profoundly held beliefs of most of whom we would call villains in our world today? Take Osama Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? Pol Pot? Kruschev and Fidel Castro?
Take Adolf Hitler, during the second world war, while millions were fighting and dying?”

History is always a good teacher, or should be. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, the same question remains unanswered. You demand from writers of a FICTIONAL film something that the average person does not seem to demand or cannot get answers to for real life (and death) situations.

Sorry, I believe it is you who is not thinking. I have seen all those episodes and they were great. And no, I do not see life in black and white, nor do I wish to see films present situations in just black and white – good vs evil, good guy/bad guy stuff – anything but. The truth is though – the longer the time given over to showing the battle and fight scenes, the less time there is for genuine exposition of motivations, intention, needs etc of the various parties involved in the conflict, when making a movie of the usual 2 hour duration. Something else to think about…

All I am asking is – why should we expect to know more than we might know or have access to if such events were actually happening in real life?

My better half and I live with the reality of not knowing WHY?, as in who were these people and why did they think what they did was so funny…? The truth is – we’ll never know, but my husband lives with the consequences of their actions 24/7. Yet, if someone turned our story into a work of *fiction*, you would be going off your rocket about how the story was too “black and white”, no motivation etc was explained about the perpetrators and calling it bad writing etc. If only REAL life could be so easily explained, all the loose ends tied up and people given the opportunity to “think” and “use their brain”.

Now, do you get it?

After all this time, you actually believe that I, personally, am so simple and one dimensional. Thanks a lot, mate. Sheesh!

84. Basement Blogger - November 23, 2012

@ 83

Keachick,

To answer your questions regarding FICTIONAL antagonists, try reading my previous posts; especially number 82 which explains what makes great science fiction.

Your final question asks this, :

“After all this time, you actually believe that I, personally, am so simple and one dimensional.”

My answer to this question is YES.

85. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 23, 2012

Wow. You really don’t get it, do you? So sad…

So knowing lots about a villain will make you THINK more than not knowing? I mean, this is what the discussion is about – good science fiction constitutes knowing about lots about a (fictional) villain. I say No, not necessarily so…just as in real life, as we know it, not all questions are easily answered, if at all (to one’s satisfaction), so too in good science fiction.

If only real life was as simple as “good science fiction”… my contention is that perhaps any work of fiction should resemble something of real life, whether it be about people and topics of the present day or about some futuristic fictional world based on the world as we know it today, like STAR TREK. It is not simple or one dimensional to think that all will NOT be necessarily known or should be known about the people causing bad things, calamities etc. However, I do think it is a little simplistic that everything is always revealed and all tied up in a neat little bow by the end of the film, episode, series…

Another aspect to all this is that if people don’t like or understand the answers given at the end, then they still complain about hack writing etc etc – ref. Prometheus, Lost, as examples. In both examples, people are not unanimous with their opinions on whether the writers gave both works of fiction satisfactory conclusions.

86. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 23, 2012

What has cultivating good thinking processes got to do with having knowledge of any villain’s intentions? Do you think our protagonists would necessarily know the whats, whys, wherefores, hows of an enemy they might encounter? Honestly? More often than not, the answer would be a resounding NO. So why should the audience necessarily have that information or ever get such information? Surely, it is the not knowing that causes you to THINK, about possible motives, solutions and having the faith and courage to act in the best way possible given what little, if any, information, you have.

Maybe the protagonists may learn of the motives, needs, beliefs of their antagonists and maybe not. Perhaps there is no opportunity because it could well be a kill or be killed situation. If such a scenario is presented on film, that does not make it bad (science) fiction. What it does show is how things can happen, for better or worse, as it does in real life sometimes. Sad but true.

87. Basement Blogger - November 24, 2012

@ 85

Keachick,

Wrong again. I do get it. Now we might agree here. I don’t get the world of Keachick. Since I’ve been on this site, I’ve seen you debate many other people too. I’m sure they don’t get the world of Keachick either.

88. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 24, 2012

The world of Keachick? Wow! I am not sure if I should take that as a compliment or an insult. For some reason, I suspect I should take the latter…

So, you say, you do get it? So what is your problem, apart from not being able to “get the world of Keachick”?

What an ass. I’m done here.

89. Basement Blogger - November 25, 2012

@ 88

Keachick says,

“What an ass. I’m done here.”

Very eloquent Keachick. It’s like the time you told us to “shut up.” And you promise to be “done here.” One can dream. One can dream.

90. Rose (as in Keachick) - November 25, 2012

When you do not understand what I say, there seems to be a tendency among people here to get mean and personal with me. I mean, what was that “world of Keachick” comment about that you think that most people don’t get and the bit about me not being educated enough and not thinking? The bit about not having as good an education as others – quite likely in many instances, but not being able to think (for myself) – not necessarily so at all!

I see you do not explain these comments, put downs, even if I do call you an ass. And yes, Basement Blogger, when people are repeating the same thing over and over again, with no positive outcome as a result of such monotonous repetition, then surely it is time to be quiet, you know – “shut up”.

If I could get a green back for everytime I read someone refer to (1) Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman Star Trek’s bad man, Nero, as some sort of mustache twirling villain or that (2) TOS had expounded so much more (in depth) thought provoking episodes than the latest Star Trek movie, then I would be a very rich woman. Neither statements are strictly true.

“Devil in the Dark” was a great episode, but not as profound as many might think. Lucky that the only mind-melding Vulcan in all of Starfleet was on hand to explain it all…who knows what the outcome might have been had he had not been there. It was actually Kirk’s coming close to the Horta and both intuiting the other’s intentions that was the game-changer, but Kirk did not have Spock’s abilities, so would/could the nice, neat explanation given by Spock, been as forthcoming or as well understood, had Spock not been there?

Yes, indeed, one can dream.

91. Basement Blogger - November 25, 2012

@ 88, 90

Keachick says in number 88.

” I’m done here.”.

LOL. I see by post 90 you can’t keep your word. A little OCD, Keachick?

92. Caesar - November 26, 2012

“James Kirk was a farmboy long before Luke Skywalker was even thought of…”

Bullshit. Kirk was a “farmboy” as early as 1986 (that’s the first time we get a mention of Iowa). Luke was a farmboy ten years before that.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.