Author Topic: Star Trek  (Read 17499 times)

Offline EdSolo

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3185
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #210 on: May 28, 2013, 07:21 AM »
Even gimped, a Sith Lord with full Jedi training and 20+ years under Palpatine can't match a kid with maybe a month's worth of training, with almost zero lightsaber training? 

Luke gave into his hatred in ROTJ, and that made him stronger...until he came to his senses.  The force was always strong within in him, anyway.

Still pretty weak, since both Palpatine and Vader were trying to get him to do that anyway.  Luke didn't seem to have any loss of focus during his first brush with the dark side.  I would think Vader would be prepared for this outcome since both he and Palpatine have been trying to turn Luke.

It seems easy to give the lack of logic in this scenario, which is needed for story purposed, a pass while Star Trek is being lambasted for being illogical.

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13980
  • I'm a dude.
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #211 on: May 28, 2013, 11:54 AM »
I had a totally different take on that fight than most people I guess.  I didn't see it as Luke being that much better, but as Vader/Anakin being that much worse, which is a totally different thing.  Sure, Luke had some skills and was more aggressive than usual given the situation.  On the flip side, Vader's literally not the man he used to be.  He's much older, has been living in the same crap armor for two decades, he likely hasn't had much for sparring partners for several years, AND he's facing off against his own son - the only link he has back to Padme (along with Leia I Guess).  Maybe he's just not trying all that hard given the circumstances.  Do people really need more excuses why he wouldn't be as good as he was pre-armor?  I don't think he was getting stronger under Palpy - he was getting weaker, which is why Palps wanted a fresh Luke to replace him.

I don't really see how this relates to Star Trek plot holes anyway.  The transporter only works part of the time?  Seems plausable to me.  No one else has trouble with their cable screwing up or DVR not recording correctly?  Do you never have issues with connecting to a new wireless signal?  Your lawnmower or snowblower always starts up just fine with no issues?  Hell, I can't get the vending machine in the office to work half the time.  It's much more realistic to have some of the tech fail now and then in these movies (in addition to make a more dramatic story).  I always thought that was a great move by Lucas with the Falcon...its a totally tricked out space muscle car and sometimes pulls off amazing tricks that other ships couldn't match.  But it just as often fails when they need it most because that's just what happens with tech/mechanics in real life.
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Online Darby

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3379
  • I like big books and I cannot lie
    • View Profile
    • http://darby-harn.blogspot.com/
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #212 on: May 28, 2013, 01:26 PM »
Interesting point about the vending machines... but the transporter on Trek is longstanding issue. Going back to TMP, they've made issue of its unreliability. It distracts from the story in that it's not something you would use, outside of extreme necessity, and the reality is they do not need it. Its use in the current films defies logic and exists only to paper over lazy writing.

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13980
  • I'm a dude.
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #213 on: May 28, 2013, 02:17 PM »
I haven't seen the new flick, so can't comment on the story.  I'll just add that this is still fairly experimental tech for the ST universe, right?  As for an ongoing problem - how many times did we see the Falcon not working right or in need of repair?  Sometimes you just have to suspend belief a little.  Maybe I'll feel differently when I see it.
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline EdSolo

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3185
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #214 on: May 28, 2013, 03:20 PM »
I had a totally different take on that fight than most people I guess.  I didn't see it as Luke being that much better, but as Vader/Anakin being that much worse, which is a totally different thing.  Sure, Luke had some skills and was more aggressive than usual given the situation.  On the flip side, Vader's literally not the man he used to be.  He's much older, has been living in the same crap armor for two decades, he likely hasn't had much for sparring partners for several years, AND he's facing off against his own son - the only link he has back to Padme (along with Leia I Guess).  Maybe he's just not trying all that hard given the circumstances.  Do people really need more excuses why he wouldn't be as good as he was pre-armor?  I don't think he was getting stronger under Palpy - he was getting weaker, which is why Palps wanted a fresh Luke to replace him.

I don't really see how this relates to Star Trek plot holes anyway.  The transporter only works part of the time?  Seems plausable to me.  No one else has trouble with their cable screwing up or DVR not recording correctly?  Do you never have issues with connecting to a new wireless signal?  Your lawnmower or snowblower always starts up just fine with no issues?  Hell, I can't get the vending machine in the office to work half the time.  It's much more realistic to have some of the tech fail now and then in these movies (in addition to make a more dramatic story).  I always thought that was a great move by Lucas with the Falcon...its a totally tricked out space muscle car and sometimes pulls off amazing tricks that other ships couldn't match.  But it just as often fails when they need it most because that's just what happens with tech/mechanics in real life.

My point was that Trek seems to be getting nitpicked to death with the "this plot is not logical" argument so I drew a comparison with Star Wars since this is a Star Wars sight.  Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in ESB....to the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.

Offline Qui-Gon Jim

  • Jedi Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #215 on: May 28, 2013, 03:36 PM »
I have often thought that Vader changes after he encounters Luke.  He does not kill anyone after that, until he kills Palpatine.   I think that Luke reminds him of his humanity, and it is Luke's sacrifice that allows him to throw off the yoke of the dark side once and for all.

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13980
  • I'm a dude.
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #216 on: May 28, 2013, 04:12 PM »
Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in ESB....to the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.

Totally disagree. 

Luke didn't have training partners obviously, but he could have been training with remotes as we saw in ANH.  I seriously doubt Vader was doing the same or getting any more training from the Emperor.  Luke should be getting better, Vader should be getting worse.

Luke is entering his prime from an age and development standpoint.  Vader is getting old and hindered by his armor.  When you can't feel your own legs and arms and have had the same prosthetics for 20 years, I have to think your ability to sword fight is greatly reduced.  Yes, a limited time since Bespin, but health rarely follows a static decline.  Luke's got motivation on his side as well - what did Vader really care about by ROTJ?

The Padme angle is totally valid, or more directly the family angle.  Luke doesn't install good in Vader, he helps bring the good back to the surface.  And since we know there was still good in him, it's natural to assume that even a fairly bad person would still have reservations about killing his own son - practically the only family he has left.  Pretty hard to channel your best when faced with the prospect of killing your boy.  Anyone with a son should see that pretty clearly.

As for Leia remembering her mom, there's a ton of logical explanations there too.  She's tuned into the force, so maybe she picked up her mom's sadness at birth and carried that forward.  Did she see visions of her mom's life, similar to what Anakin saw of his mom?  Seems pretty likely that Anakin's daughter could channel similar abilities, even if only for a few years.  Do we even know that she's talking about her real mom?  Heck, maybe she's even referring to Breha Organa, her adoptive mother. 

It's all subject to your own interpretation I guess, but I don't find any faults with how either of these issues were addressed in the movie.
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Offline speedermike

  • Jedi Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 1816
  • He doesn't like you...
    • View Profile
    • MichaelRex.com
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #217 on: May 28, 2013, 10:39 PM »
I am amazed that the "How did Luke beat Vader?  argument is still going on.  I swear I talked about this 10 years ago on this site.  Luke beat Vader for a few reasons...

1.  He had to, and he believed in himself.  Ok.  This is cheesy, but has an underdog team ever beat a undefeated team?  Yes.  Things happen in real life that are unexplainable.

2.  It's a movie, not a video game or RPG.  Meaning, yes, Vader is technically more powerful, but Luke won.  (See reason #1)

3.  Luke was fighting for his life.  People can do amazing things under stress.  Again, look at real life, not games.

Ugh...I could go on and on...
Children's Book Author and Illustrator   mikerexbooks.blogspot.com

Offline EdSolo

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3185
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #218 on: May 29, 2013, 07:22 AM »
Even with Vader being damaged or being less than he once was, he was still facing someone completely untrained in lightsaber fighting and got his butt kicked.  More to the point, what additional lightsaber training did Luke receive between ESB and ROTJ.  Vader handled him easily in ESB....to the point he was essentially toying with Luke most of the fight.  Isn't it only a year between ESB and ROTJ?  You can't really bring up the Padme angle since she didn't exist at the time Lucas made ROTJ.  Heck, she should have survived ROTS according to Leia's remembrance of her.  Unless of course we are to believe she somehow recalls that she was pretty and sad for the all of three seconds that she saw her.

Totally disagree. 

Luke didn't have training partners obviously, but he could have been training with remotes as we saw in ANH.  I seriously doubt Vader was doing the same or getting any more training from the Emperor.  Luke should be getting better, Vader should be getting worse.

Luke is entering his prime from an age and development standpoint.  Vader is getting old and hindered by his armor.  When you can't feel your own legs and arms and have had the same prosthetics for 20 years, I have to think your ability to sword fight is greatly reduced.  Yes, a limited time since Bespin, but health rarely follows a static decline.  Luke's got motivation on his side as well - what did Vader really care about by ROTJ?

The Padme angle is totally valid, or more directly the family angle.  Luke doesn't install good in Vader, he helps bring the good back to the surface.  And since we know there was still good in him, it's natural to assume that even a fairly bad person would still have reservations about killing his own son - practically the only family he has left.  Pretty hard to channel your best when faced with the prospect of killing your boy.  Anyone with a son should see that pretty clearly.

As for Leia remembering her mom, there's a ton of logical explanations there too.  She's tuned into the force, so maybe she picked up her mom's sadness at birth and carried that forward.  Did she see visions of her mom's life, similar to what Anakin saw of his mom?  Seems pretty likely that Anakin's daughter could channel similar abilities, even if only for a few years.  Do we even know that she's talking about her real mom?  Heck, maybe she's even referring to Breha Organa, her adoptive mother. 

It's all subject to your own interpretation I guess, but I don't find any faults with how either of these issues were addressed in the movie.

You are looking at this with a lot of revisionist history.  You have to look at this as ROTJ in 1983 as a stand alone movie and what is shown on screen in order to make the comparison with Star Trek in terms of being illogical.  The gripes that I have seen about Into Darkness mostly don't deal with previous Trek.  As for Luke, sure Luke may have been training with remote, but he also may have been running so many missions for the Rebellion that he didn't have time to train.  The only lightsaber training that is the top level of cannon is his initial training with a remote in ANH.  Additionally, training with a remote isn't for dueling, it is for blaster deflection.  He had one previous one on one duel and he lost badly.

As for Vader's health, in the OT there isn't any evidence that his health is in a rapid decline.  A lot of the poor health of Vader stuff is from the EU.  Until Luke beats him down, Vader appears to be fine.

True that Luke has more motivation, but it wasn't like Vader was on the defensive until he brought up Leia, which sent Luke into a rage.  Luke's victory serves the purpose of the story, not the purposes of logic.  It is hard to believe that Luke's first brush with the darkside would increase his focus since he has been trained to use the Force when he is calm and at peace.  It would give him the extra power, but probably not the focus to wield it properly.  Vader really only makes the decision to save Luke when the Emperor is frying Luke with lightning and Luke is begging for Vader's help.  Who really knows what would happen if Vader turned Luke's anger against him and ended up disarming Luke.  Maybe he kills him on Palpatine's command and secretly decides to turn Leia instead.

The reason I said Padme was invalid is because when ROTJ was made, Padme didn't exist.  There wasn't a story written for her yet.  As for Leia's memory, it is of Padme or the idea that would be Padme in the future.  Luke specifically says "do you remember your mother, your real mother?".  It is easy to speculate about the Force and use that is a possible way to have these memories, but it is a real stretch with what is shown on screen.

Offline EdSolo

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3185
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #219 on: May 29, 2013, 07:27 AM »
I am amazed that the "How did Luke beat Vader?  argument is still going on.  I swear I talked about this 10 years ago on this site.  Luke beat Vader for a few reasons...

1.  He had to, and he believed in himself.  Ok.  This is cheesy, but has an underdog team ever beat a undefeated team?  Yes.  Things happen in real life that are unexplainable.

2.  It's a movie, not a video game or RPG.  Meaning, yes, Vader is technically more powerful, but Luke won.  (See reason #1)

3.  Luke was fighting for his life.  People can do amazing things under stress.  Again, look at real life, not games.

Ugh...I could go on and on...

It really isn't a debate of "how did he do it" more so a debate of "is it logical it happened".  It is more of "if this were real" type of scenario.  Since there was an endgame in ROTJ, yes Luke had to win or it would have been a real depressing story and not a proper end to a trilogy of movies.  Of course their are underdogs that win in real life, but the odds are against it.  I put this on the level of 14, 15 or 16 seed winning the NCAA tournament more than the NY Giants beating the undefeated Patriots in the Superbowl.

Vader was fighting for his life as well.  I would think he was pretty aware the Palpatine wanted Luke for an apprentice.

Offline JediJman

  • Jedi Sentinel
  • *
  • Posts: 13980
  • I'm a dude.
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #220 on: May 29, 2013, 08:16 AM »
Chalk it up to a difference of opinions then.  I think the final duel is completely within reason given multiple factors.  If you want to call out gaps in realism or probability, I'd bring up things like the crack stormtroopers' inability to hit anyone or the likelihood that the alliance gives Luke a ship to fly against the Death Star after just meeting him.  There are lots of convenient plot points in scifi that are just necessary to tell a good story.
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. " -Jack Handey

Online Darby

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3379
  • I like big books and I cannot lie
    • View Profile
    • http://darby-harn.blogspot.com/
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #221 on: May 29, 2013, 01:18 PM »
This is interesting (in a Star Trek thread) and I think really JediJMan is on the right track. We should only look at ROTJ in the context of the movie itself. The only difference in that final duel is Vader's willingness, of which there is slim to none. This is conveyed actually rather well via the physical performance. From the scene on Endor where it becomes clear there is reluctance in Anakin to see his son fall into the same shadow he has, Vader is never going to win that fight. Luke is motivated to win. Vader is not. You see it again during the duel itself, particularly at the pause where Luke is on the stairs and calls his dad on his lack of conviction, and then finally when Luke charges him for the final confrontation.

Offline EdSolo

  • Jedi Knight
  • *
  • Posts: 3185
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #222 on: May 29, 2013, 01:24 PM »
Chalk it up to a difference of opinions then.  I think the final duel is completely within reason given multiple factors.  If you want to call out gaps in realism or probability, I'd bring up things like the crack stormtroopers' inability to hit anyone or the likelihood that the alliance gives Luke a ship to fly against the Death Star after just meeting him.  There are lots of convenient plot points in scifi that are just necessary to tell a good story.

That is my point in all of this.  People seem to be nitpicking the death out of the transporter thing and thus saying Star Trek is a poor movie when it is a similar plot device that is used in numerous movies.  I think people are being overly harsh on Star Trek just because they want to hate it.

Offline BillCable

  • Jedi General
  • *
  • Posts: 9303
  • CreatureCantina.com SUCKS!!
    • View Profile
    • CreatureCantina.com
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #223 on: May 29, 2013, 01:47 PM »
I didn't want to hate it.  I wanted to enjoy it.  Who goes into a theater wanting to hate what they're about to see?  Other than a professional reviewer?

Just because you don't agree with the criticism, don't try to paint those who hold a different opinion as somehow biased and thus their criticisms invalid.  Transporters in Trek2 only worked and only failed when it conveniently served the plot.  It was one of many signs of EXTREMELY sloppy writing.

And the fact that other movies have plot holes, some of them excused by various people, is not a meaningful rebuttal.  Reviews are subjective and thus not bound by objective criteria like consistency.  I love me a good, bad zombie movie... that doesn't make any criticism I'd make of a bad good zombie movie invalid.

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy: 
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
Bill Cable - Steeler Fan & Star Wars Collector
  http://CreatureCantina.com       
"Cable is incapable of contributing anything positive to this world" - cstoj

Offline Scockery

  • Jedi Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 1841
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #224 on: May 29, 2013, 09:01 PM »
Red Letter Media's spoiler heavy review sums up the film well to me (and without going much into technology stuff).

As for wanting to hate? I'm glad there's life left in Star Trek. I wish it were more than a new movie every 4 years, but at least it's something.

If you want to call out gaps in realism or probability, I'd bring up things like the crack stormtroopers' inability to hit anyone...

 Letting our heroes escape with Leia was part of Vader's plan...the homing beacon...they can't escape if they are shot dead, can they?