Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

Oh, I have no problem understanding metaphor, I have a problem understanding how a PR firm let something slip out that uses the word "detonate" ambiguously in both the literal and (eye-rollingly terrible) metaphorical senses in the same sentence. It's just sloppy, sloppy bad writing.

EDIT: And "detonate" is such a bad word choice to describe the destruction of the fleet. For instance, why not just use the word "destroy"? It reeks of using a thesaurus to make the synopsis "flashier."

 

Man i wish the last Star Trek movie would of put in that Kirk (William Shatner) scene they were talking about. That would of been the perfect ending.

 

*does not read synopsis*

I don't understand why they don't just put a colon in the title and make it much better.

 

Okay, that's fair enough. As for the first objection, I'm not aware of any writing rule that says you aren't 'allowed' to use a word in both a literal and metaphorical sense in the same sentence. I don't have a problem with that.

 

Lowbud seems to be on a crusade against this movie, picking out every little thing that could possibly be perceived as a flaw. It's the frelling synopsis, not the screenplay. Whether or not bad metaphors are used in a synopsis literally have ZERO EFFECT on the actual movie.

 

Yeah, PR departments don't write the movie.

 

I'm far more worried about the triumvirate of Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof.

 

<-------- My reaction after reading this "synopsis".

 

I forget the name for what the rule is, but its a kind of figure of speech that causes unwanted ambiguity because you have a literal and metaphorical meaning applying exclusively to two different things within the same sentence. It's just kind of crummy writing in a way, and it's a little unbalanced, because the literal part only applies to the first clause, and the metaphor only applies to the second clause, but the coordinating conjunction makes it want to apply in one way to both of them equally.

Lord Vivec: I'm not on a crusade against the film. I hope that it will be good. I want it to be good. In some way maybe I need it to be good, but I just have such huge reservations about Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof (and maybe a bit towards Abrams too) that I'm worried and, yes, skeptical about the quality. The title itself gives me problems for reasons I've covered at length before and which adds to that worry.

The synopsis I just wanted to rib because it was so poorly written I couldn't believe, and I don't take it as a reflection on the movie, even though I am so, so, SO done with Abram's mystery box approach that it drives me up a wall. What is the point in keeping a villain secret in a Star Trek movie? These are not puzzle movies. Sometimes it's just good marketing to let us know who the crew is up against.

 

Maybe the new Star Trek movies reversed the odd/even curse.

 

Sounds ok so far, what is all the hate for? Oh, internet. Yeah.

 

[quote="DarthLowBudget]
The synopsis I just wanted to rib because it was so poorly written I couldn't believe, and I don't take it as a reflection on the movie, even though I am so, so, SO done with Abram's mystery box approach that it drives me up a wall. What is the point in keeping a villain secret in a Star Trek movie? These are not puzzle movies. Sometimes it's just good marketing to let us know who the crew is up against.[/quote]

Meh, I highly appreciate anyone who holds back info. It makes my job of avoiding spoilers a lot easier. I am so sick of movies these days being tainted by what you know going in. I knew absolutely nothing about the last film going in and it made it that much better. Hence why I'm not even reading that synopsis.

I'm probably going to see the first 9 minutes and will probably watch the trailer.... but yeah, I most likely won't be reading this thread much more when the spoilers are going to start flying. I love that Abrams at least attempts to limit that.

Why would it influence anything to know who they are against? You're going to see it anyway.

 

I guess I'm just not a spoilerphobe, but then again, is the villain of a film really a spoiler?

 

An "unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization", eh?

 

No but is it something you need to know if you're already going to see it? Isn't that probably going to be explained within the film by the filmmakers?

 

Maybe the PR department couldn't bring themselves to write: "When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization... named Gary!!!"

 

It sounds like it might be Section 31. The IDW comic set in the movieverse had a bit where Sulu was offered to join them, or a group like them. There was also a part where Pike was warned to keep Kirk on a short leash by a secretive Federation higher-up, hinting at Section 31/Corrupt Feds shenanigans for the movie.

 

And Abrams more or less said during the run up to XI that everything up to the point of the beginning of the film that occured in the 'regular' trek universe was canon in the alternate movieverse. Which definitely doesn't rule out Section 31 as they were being formed at the end of Enterprise.

 

I think at this point my reaction is more to Abram's general attitude towards these things, especially because I think his overarching love of mystery doesn't always do his storytelling many favors.

 

I have an overarching love of mystery, so I may be biased

 

I love a good mystery too, don't get me wrong (I've put in my Conan Doyle and Dashiel Hammet hours), but I don't think that everything benefits from being a mystery. Case in point: Vickers meaningless relationship with her father in Prometheus. Culprit: Lindelof.

 

Anybody else read the reimagined Return of the Archons episode comic?

 

While I agree that it's kind of annoying that they're keeping the identity of the villain under wraps (and have been teasing about both Khan and Gary Mitchell), for a reboot of a franchise as huge as Star Trek with as passionate of a fanbase, it's kind of a built in viral marketing campaign just to not reveal those things, and make the fans speculate and pore over old canon to try to decide who it could be and who they want it to be. I think it's dumb, but I can't really fault them for it, and in this case I don't think it would be good marketing to have said months ago "It's Gary Mitchell." I'm sure we'll find out at some point before the movie's released, but by not confirming it they've driven tons of publicity in the form of speculative articles and blog posts.


edit: TWICE I said the wrong name.

 

?

 

Exactly. It works, so why on earth wouldn't they do that? It's worked for many of Abrams films to create interest that way (Cloverfield, Super 8).