Active Users:206 Time:18/05/2024 04:32:36 AM
Re: My responses Nate Send a noteboard - 08/12/2011 03:37:18 PM
I have an easier time seeing Nero as a plain old crazy person than as a sociopath, but that could just be me.

But for me, here's what it all comes down to, storywise:

Initial stimulus: Romulus is being destroyed, Spock tries to stop it with his red matter somehow.

Then it just so happens that by accident a time travelling wormhole thing opens, which just happens to deposite Nero into the exact time and place where there was a ship where Kirk's father just happened to be serving, at the exact time when it just happened that Kirk was being born. Kirk then just happened to grow up nextdoor to where the Enterprise was being constructed, and just happened to be capable of getting into Starfleet much faster than other people, so that he just happened to have barely made it in at the time when old Spock just happened to be deposited back into the past, which just happened to be at a different time than Nero. Kirk just happened to meet the guy who could get him on board the Enterprise, and then just happened to be the one person who could figure out that it was a trap. Pike just happened to make him first officer (your arguments are valid, but more on that later), and then when Spock rejected this, they just happened to place Kirk on a planet within half a mile of a cave where the one person in the galaxy who could explain things was, and then Kirk just happened to find it. In need of a miraculous transporter operation, they just happened to be near a Federation outpost where Scottie just happened to be serving. They then catch up to Nero and destroy him.

Now, you can build up individual explanations for most of these that maybe sort of make sense, but when your plot is built on such a wobbly foundation of dozens of "just happened"s, then it just happens that your plot might not be that great. :p

However, you are correct that you can differentiate between plot and storytelling, and if you're talking about pure storytelling style with no regard to the plot behind it, then yeah, that was fairly well done. As I said, I liked the movie quite a bit. I'm a fan. But damn, I could use a sturdier plot.
Warder to starry_nite

Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Reply to message
Khan is IN (but Benicio Del Toro is OUT) as Star Trek 2's villain - 06/12/2011 02:58:08 PM 1045 Views
ST2 - 06/12/2011 04:34:40 PM 583 Views
Wha?!? - 07/12/2011 12:06:49 AM 486 Views
Yes and no. - 07/12/2011 05:42:43 PM 558 Views
I am curious, what aspects of the movie were poor story telling? *NM* - 07/12/2011 06:23:35 PM 189 Views
Well. - 07/12/2011 08:00:20 PM 492 Views
My responses - 08/12/2011 05:38:26 AM 454 Views
Re: My responses - 08/12/2011 03:37:18 PM 528 Views
Re: My responses - 08/12/2011 04:21:30 PM 443 Views
I think we essentially agree. *NM* - 08/12/2011 04:38:03 PM 191 Views
For Roland. - 08/12/2011 06:05:28 PM 472 Views
Well. - 08/12/2011 06:00:34 PM 475 Views
Wait a minute! Could Khan possibly be... - 06/12/2011 06:45:07 PM 622 Views
Probably - 07/12/2011 12:02:16 AM 420 Views
Sounds like he'll play some kind of C.E.O. *NM* - 09/12/2011 08:40:30 AM 211 Views
The only thing I liked Del Toro in was "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", so no big loss. - 06/12/2011 06:54:38 PM 433 Views
I liked him in The Usual Suspects - 06/12/2011 11:57:27 PM 494 Views
I don't even usually remember he was in that. He just didn't stand out. *NM* - 07/12/2011 02:20:12 AM 182 Views
I don't need Khan, really - 07/12/2011 11:25:13 AM 488 Views
Gasp! From hell's heart I stabbeth thee! *NM* - 07/12/2011 05:39:01 PM 237 Views
I vote for Jim Parsons. *NM* - 07/12/2011 01:20:57 PM 255 Views
I liked Wrath of Khan, but ... - 07/12/2011 05:45:18 PM 432 Views
There is only one Star Trek II, and it was made in 1982. - 11/12/2011 07:46:14 PM 449 Views

Reply to Message