Originally Posted by ryan (Post 153346)

The space jump.
Rescuing Spock at the beginning.
Capturing Harrison.
If I kept thinking about it, I think I could come up with more.
Oh, after the space jump, the entire sequence up to them beaming back to the Enterprise.

Also, there were more than two character moments.
Kirk and Pine being dressed down.
Kirk, Spock, and Pine at that one moment.
Kirk, Spock, Uhura in the shuttlecraft.
Kirk and Spock on at least 2, maybe 3 different occasions.

It's okay for you not to like it, I'm not trying to persuade you to like it, but I do think you should be a little more fair in your reasons for disliking it, and not dismiss everything out of hand because it's not like the original series (which is kinda what it sounds like you're doing).

Originally Posted by Locke (Post 153349)

Without Harrison Kirk would have died during the space jump.

Originally Posted by Locke (Post 153349)

Spock was the reason they captured Harrison.

Originally Posted by Locke (Post 153349)

And you mean when they go across the ship? And where Harrison ends up beating the absolute crap out of everyone? And then it's Spock who ends up taking the ship out?

Originally Posted by Locke (Post 153349)

Everything with Kirk, Spock and Spock and Urura played out in the background, only coming to the forefront for melodrama.

And I disliked the film because it was underwhelming, I liked 2009 much much better.

Originally Posted by ryan (Post 153353)

That's not the point. The point is it was Kirk's plan and it worked. You can't expect one person to plan something and pull it off by himself. The reason you have a team is so they can help each other make it work. Just because shit happens and Kirk needed help doesn't make him " someone who needs a bib because he's dribbling down himself", which is one of the comments I object to.



Howso? Because he told Kirk to reconsider the order? It was still Kirk's decision and plan.



Again, Harrison wasn't alone in the assault, maybe he did more than the others, but he may not have been able to handle on his own either. Yes, he had his own plans, that Kirk was ill-prepared to deal with, but again, he shouldn't be perfect, or unbeatable. Someone who never loses or makes a mistake is boring, unrealistic and not somethign we can relate to. Of course we want our heroes to be better than us, so we have something to aspire to, but we also have to be able to relate to them somewhat, so we can see that we can go from what we are, to what they are.



That's fine, and is easier for me to process and accept, rather than saying PineKirk is rubbish, since I think the movies do a fine job at showing he's clever, yet flawed, and this one, showing that he can recognize his flaws and work on improving them. He can accept he needs help from his crew. He learns the ARE his family, and not only should he protect them, but he should rely on their talents to complement his, and support his shortcomings.

Originally Posted by Paladin (Post 153584)

Last weekend I saw Iron Man 3. Very good, better than 2 but the first one is still my favorite (tied for Best Standalone Marvel Hero film with Cap).

Tonight, I'm re-watching "ParaNorman," which is a FANTASTIC film that I encourage everyone to watch and is thankfully now on Netflix Instant streaming. :D

Originally Posted by ComicGuy89 (Post 153580)

In case anyone just jumped in, huge SPOILER WARNING for Star Trek Into Darkness.

New Kirk is not rubbish. He makes pretty much the same mistakes as every other captain in Star Trek history. Need I remind you how Shatner's Kirk got his crew severely endangered every single movie. And it is incorrect to say the original Kirk did not rely that much on Spock, every single movie in the original had Spock saving the day except the third one, which was when he was missing. At least most of the time, it was Spock's thinking that prevailed. Most importantly, in Wrath of Khan, which this movie builds of, it was Spock's "two-dimensional thinking" observation that helped win the battle.

Into Darkness is essentially a modern Wrath of Khan, a movie that saw Shatner's Kirk fail so drastically that he had to rethink his confidence and his methods. This movie is the same, both are essentially teaching Kirk the true meaning of being captain. In fact, this bit of character development was the whole point, otherwise Pike wouldn't say these to set up the story:



Also remember Spock's words which, while meant for Spock originally, apply to Kirk in this movie since he never learned that lesson in the 2009 movie:



Breaking down the captain in a situation that gives him no alternative, no way out is a recurring plot point in Star Trek, we've seen it with Picard and other captains. Bonus points if the mess was the result of some bad decisions by the captain in the first place.

Originally Posted by Locke (Post 153588)

I guess the big difference is we had three seasons and a movie before we saw the grave cost it took to take down Kahn, it was also a continuation from a story in the show with considerably greater amount of establishment, therefore we had enough of Kirk's success to feel thrilled by Kirk's incredible failure. It was in senses a grandiose character arc.

Here we've only had one film, and one rescue at the start of Into Darkness, before PineKirk is getting everyone killed and getting himself smashed into the floor.

Being in such a condense space not only gave less time to show PineKirk succeed but magnified how regularly he failed.

Originally Posted by ComicGuy89 (Post 153609)

Hmm that is a good point, a lot of Kirk's experience is implied because they don't have a TV show to build off. It's a minor problem with series that are restricted to movies, where character development is given only mere 2-4 hours rather than the 20-60+ a TV series gives. It's a shame that every Trek captain has had a series to build off except New Kirk.

I still don't agree with you but I believe it's due to the priorities we place and how we see things. I saw evidence of Kirk's genius in the 2009 movie and his great command then. I assumed his continued adventures on the Enterprise before Into Darkness were equally well-commanded. I'm willing to accept the movie telling me that Kirk is a great captain by implying it, but I can see now how someone might look at it different. STILL disagree, but well, to each his own.

Originally Posted by Locke (Post 153611)

It also doesn't help that Into Darkness is basically 99% action, there are basically no character arcs, except retreads from the first film and most of the most interesting aspects characterwise happen off screen. They could have pulled it off in two movies, maybe. but it seems Abrams was unwilling to be anyone other than Michael Bay and it's a shame.

I never thought I'd get bored of action this good but I did when action scenes were used to bridge the next action scene. How am I supposed to be convinced by all the melodrama in the third act or even care about Harrison's twist when there is about fifteen minutes worth of character stuff in a near two and a half hour long movie?

2009 was better for Kirk, it was better for the whole cast, because not every scene was an action scene, there were actual character moments and character arcs.