Blazer's Edge: FanPosts

Win now

2013-05-22T03:28:48Z

I have been reading a lot about the draft and whatnot and it seems the vets want to "win now", especially since we only have the 10th pick. Here is a scenario I believe will get us in the "win now" mode and still keep us fairly young for the future.

Trade Batum + 10th pick + Leonerd for the #1 pick (Cleveland wants Batum BAD)

Trade picks 1/39/40 to Washington for Nene + 3rd pick

Draft Otto Porter with the 3rd overall pick

Offer Reke max contract.

Re-sign Maynor.

Sign O'Neil to Vet's minimum.

Sign Marreese Speights.

Sign Rich Jefferson to vets minimum.

Sign Dante Cunningham

Sign Dorrell Wright

Final lineup of

Lillard/Maynor/Evans

Evans/Matthews/Williams/Barton

Porter/Wright/Jefferson

Aldridge/Speights/Cunningham

Nene/O'Neil/Speights

Of course it would be insanely hard to do, but damn it would be nice. That's one deep/experienced/fairly young team.

Thoughts?

Trade Batum + 10th pick + Leonerd for the #1 pick (Cleveland wants Batum BAD)

Trade picks 1/39/40 to Washington for Nene + 3rd pick

Draft Otto Porter with the 3rd overall pick

Offer Reke max contract.

Re-sign Maynor.

Sign O'Neil to Vet's minimum.

Sign Marreese Speights.

Sign Rich Jefferson to vets minimum.

Sign Dante Cunningham

Sign Dorrell Wright

Final lineup of

Lillard/Maynor/Evans

Evans/Matthews/Williams/Barton

Porter/Wright/Jefferson

Aldridge/Speights/Cunningham

Nene/O'Neil/Speights

Of course it would be insanely hard to do, but damn it would be nice. That's one deep/experienced/fairly young team.

Thoughts?

A route to trading up, and more.

2013-05-21T23:12:03Z

1. We trade with Chicago.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ktuyz4q

We also get the 20th pick and they get all three of our second rounders to beef up their bench cheap.

Chicago gets luxury tax relief (they have never, ever paid luxury tax).

We get some tough veterans closer to Aldridge's age.

After that, Chiacgo looks like

Rose/Teague/vet min

Matthews/Butler/2nd round pick

Batum/Butler/2nd round pick

Boozer/Gibson/2nd round pick

Noah/Gibson/vet min

We look like

Lillard/Maynor

Hinrich/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Claver/Barton

LMA/Freeland

Leonard/Freeland

Trade Claver, the 10th and 20th round pick to Phoenix for the 4th pick and their second round pick.

Draft Oladipo.

Draft the Best Big Available (BBA)

Don't bother re-signing Maynor. Bring over da greek.

Lillard/Hinrich

Oladipo/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Freeland

Leonard/BBA

Sign Jermaine O Neal.

Lillard/Hinrich

Oladipo/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Freeland/BBA

Leonard/O Neal/BBA

Sign Dejuan Blair

Lillard/Hinrich

Oladipo/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Blair/Freeland

Leonard/O Neal/BBA

Cut Ric Hamilton, sign JJ Reddick

Lillard/Hinrich/Reddick

Oladipo/Reddick/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Blair/Freeland

Leonard/O Neal/BBA

Resign Luke Babbitt and Elliot Williams, just because, as 14th and 15th men.

Get LMA to play some minutes at C.

If it doesn't work, get what you can for Aldridge and Deng at the trade deadline and rebuild around Lillard, Oladipo + the free agency class of 2014.

1. We trade with Chicago.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ktuyz4q

We also get the 20th pick and they get all three of our second rounders to beef up their bench cheap.

Chicago gets luxury tax relief (they have never, ever paid luxury tax).

We get some tough veterans closer to Aldridge's age.

After that, Chiacgo looks like

Rose/Teague/vet min

Matthews/Butler/2nd round pick

Batum/Butler/2nd round pick

Boozer/Gibson/2nd round pick

Noah/Gibson/vet min

We look like

Lillard/Maynor

Hinrich/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Claver/Barton

LMA/Freeland

Leonard/Freeland

Trade Claver, the 10th and 20th round pick to Phoenix for the 4th pick and their second round pick.

Draft Oladipo.

Draft the Best Big Available (BBA)

Don't bother re-signing Maynor. Bring over da greek.

Lillard/Hinrich

Oladipo/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Freeland

Leonard/BBA

Sign Jermaine O Neal.

Lillard/Hinrich

Oladipo/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Freeland/BBA

Leonard/O Neal/BBA

Sign Dejuan Blair

Lillard/Hinrich

Oladipo/Hamilton/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Blair/Freeland

Leonard/O Neal/BBA

Cut Ric Hamilton, sign JJ Reddick

Lillard/Hinrich/Reddick

Oladipo/Reddick/Barton

Deng/Papanikolau/Barton

LMA/Blair/Freeland

Leonard/O Neal/BBA

Resign Luke Babbitt and Elliot Williams, just because, as 14th and 15th men.

Get LMA to play some minutes at C.

If it doesn't work, get what you can for Aldridge and Deng at the trade deadline and rebuild around Lillard, Oladipo + the free agency class of 2014.

NBA Draft Lottery Predictions

2013-05-21T21:43:46Z

As you all know the NBA draft lotto is being held tonight, with Damian Lillard representing the Blazers. Of course, we have had great luck in draft lottos when we are represented by a Rookie of the Year who was picked sixth after four years of college (though we don't need to bring up the success in using that pick).

So to assume that we will move up would be completely reasonable. Post your predictions here for the draft lotto order. You can include a mock if you want, or just the order.

Conspiracy theories, homerism, chance, and anything other reasons are fair game. Also, feel free to post your predictions WITH the Blazers moving up and without.

1. Orlando-

Cleveland lost LeBron and then won the lotto. New Orleans lost Paul and then won. Now since the Magic lost Dwight Howard, they are next in line. Plus they have the best chance anyway

2. Phoenix-

A large market that needs something to get excited about with a crappy team that just lost favorite son Nash and doesn't really have any pieces to get excited about. Plus it is nice to have one East and one West in the top two.

3. Charlotte-

The Hornets badly need more talent. Can't let them fall too far or nobody will watch.

4. Cleveland

5. New Orleans

6. Sacramento

It was really tempting to put them in second after all the drama and with new ownership. I could totally see that happening.

7. Detroit

8. Washington

9. Minnesota

10. Portland-

Of course we're going to win 1, 2, or 3. I just put us here for the purpose of discussing why other teams would move up.

11. Philly

12. OKC

13. Dallas

14. Utah

So to assume that we will move up would be completely reasonable. Post your predictions here for the draft lotto order. You can include a mock if you want, or just the order.

Conspiracy theories, homerism, chance, and anything other reasons are fair game. Also, feel free to post your predictions WITH the Blazers moving up and without.

1. Orlando-

Cleveland lost LeBron and then won the lotto. New Orleans lost Paul and then won. Now since the Magic lost Dwight Howard, they are next in line. Plus they have the best chance anyway

2. Phoenix-

3. Charlotte-

The Hornets badly need more talent. Can't let them fall too far or nobody will watch.

4. Cleveland

5. New Orleans

6. Sacramento

It was really tempting to put them in second after all the drama and with new ownership. I could totally see that happening.

7. Detroit

8. Washington

9. Minnesota

10. Portland-

Of course we're going to win 1, 2, or 3. I just put us here for the purpose of discussing why other teams would move up.

11. Philly

12. OKC

13. Dallas

14. Utah

Poll

Where will the Blazers end up?

Which type of big do the blazers need?

2013-05-21T21:32:43Z

This is my first fanpost, so don't be gentle on me! How else am I going to improve?

I'm going to compare two types of bigs (centers or power forwards) and make an argument for what Blazers need.

You have a Gobert type that has length/height and shot blocking. This is what they do, and have done, their basketball career. They are offensively raw and probably at most going to give you dunks and free throws, both good things. These guys take longer to develop, thus tagged with a player who has 'potential'. I see Omer Asik in this category, along with Roy Hibbert. Course, you also have the Has, Thabeets, and countless other tall centers/forwards who really aren't meant for the NBA. You also have the offensive giants, without any defensive mechanics....hmm, who could that be? Hint: Backwards first-last name.

Then you have a group of shorter, possibly more skilled hustle players that had to work harder against other players through development. That hard work paid off and you get a player with a lot of rebounds and put backs. JJ hickson, anyone? We all know how hard he worked for the blazers. Paul Milsap, who is skilled offensively, can be thrown into any team and improve win count. These players out hustle the other teams centers, and their offensive ability can take off pressure from perimeter players. I think of Kenneth Faried as a good example of a solid player that will go against a bigger player without too much of a problem.

My vote for the Blazers is the first category. I think you put a good role player, specifically inside presence and shot blocking, next to Aldridge. Height matters. Some of these combine numbers can throw people off. I am stating that pure height combined with length, not athleticism, is what the blazers need. Have you ever tried to drive to the basket against a player over 7 ft? Regardless of anything else, a player is going to hesitate for a half a second longer than a 6'9 big. Of course, this big needs to be able to have lateral quickness to be a force in the paint.

What do you think? Which big do the blazers need more?

With the draft lottery today Rudy Gobert and Alex Len both have the defensive potential the blazers need.

FA/Trade targets I'd consider in this category are Omer Asik, Roy Hibbert, and Javalle Mcgee.

This is my first fanpost, so don't be gentle on me! How else am I going to improve?

I'm going to compare two types of bigs (centers or power forwards) and make an argument for what Blazers need.

What do you think? Which big do the blazers need more?

With the draft lottery today Rudy Gobert and Alex Len both have the defensive potential the blazers need.

FA/Trade targets I'd consider in this category are Omer Asik, Roy Hibbert, and Javalle Mcgee.

VICTOR OLADIPO

2013-05-21T20:58:25Z

Man, I like this guy the more I see him. I think his style fits in perfect with ours. Here is what I like about him.

1- He plays a physical game, gets to the rim well and finishes well through contact.

2- He can break. Alot. A big part of the NBA shooting guards threat should always be running and attacking on the break. Easy buckets win ball games and are freebies. Vic does this really well and would certainly help Dame is this. How many times do we see Matthews running the lane and scoring in transition? Rarely.

3- He picks his shots well. He fixed his jumpshot and it worked. I think his shooting will really prevail in the NBA solely because he know whats a good shot and what isn't. Lebron FINALLY figured this out. Vic already has this.

4- He has a nice Pull Up off the dribble. Lots of balance and lift and a LOT of accuracy. You don't see a lot of this in the NBA anymore. Jordan developed this. Westbrook has added it but most of the other guys are fading and falling. You don't shoot this well (70%??) by fluke off the dribble.

5- HE CAN SCORE EFFICIENTLY WITHOUT DOMINATING THE BALL. Every freakin SG in the NBA seems to want to be a point guard and pound the nails into the court. I hate this. Remember Reggie Miller moving off the ball? D Wade figured this out last year. Vic already has this. This is a big deal especially with a scoring point like Dame. I LOVE this part. He uses cuts to get to the rim. Our offense has a lot of this already.

Update:

Of course he plays fantastic defense at a very dynamic position on and off ball.

I see him as kind of a James Harden with less handles, more athleticism, more defense, less hair, better pull up and more game off the ball. All he needs to do is continue to improve his ball handling. That will improve his drives (which are explosive and already great), improve his ISO game and also cut way down on his turn overs. I would take this dude #1 easily in this draft for Portland. High efficiency isn't a fluke with this guy. That also says ALOT about his decision making and tells me that his work ethic could REALLY make him elite. He has the body and the game to do it.

Man, I like this guy the more I see him. I think his style fits in perfect with ours. Here is what I like about him.

1- He plays a physical game, gets to the rim well and finishes well through contact.

Update:

Of course he plays fantastic defense at a very dynamic position on and off ball.

Why doesn't the NBA air the lottery drawing live?

2013-05-21T20:26:43Z

As probably all of you know today is the day in which the NBA unveils the draft order for the teams selecting in the lottery. They make it a fun little halftime event in which representatives from each team sit at a desk marked with their team's logo and hold some lucky item while someone from the NBA (Stern or Silver I think) opens envelopes for the order of the picks. Commercial breaks are strategically inserted throughout, most notably immediately before and after the 3rd pick is disclosed. What could a curmudgeonly Blazer fan like myself dislike about this?

Well, for starters there's the other half of this in which the picks are actually decided. From what I have read it takes place in a sterile room with some representatives from the NBA along with a potential figure from each lottery team who elects to be present. The 'lottery' takes place much as its name would indicate, as a lotto style ping pong ball machine with balls numbered 1-14 is setup and run by a 3rd party NBA contractor who handles the logistics and prevents tampering.

This creates 1001 possible combinations as four balls are selected with the order of selection being relevant (i.e. 11-12-13-14 is not the same as 14-13-12-11) but only 1000 combos are assigned to teams as winners (in the event the 1001st combo is drawn its just a do over). Every team is given a certain number of winning combinations ranging from 250 to 5 (25% chance at winning down to 0.5%) based on reverse winning percentage and any tie breakers that were previously held. The 3rd party then runs the machine and gets the combo for the first pick, reloads and repeats for the 2nd and does the same again for the 3rd. In the event that a combo belonging to a team that has already won a top 3 pick is drawn, the selection is just re-run (just like if the 1001st combo is picked).

I get that the NBA wants to have this semi-pompous thing where a non-playoff team gets to be a winner for the day with everyone starting out full of hope. Everything ends with the top 2 picks being announced in a moment filled with tense drama for both fan bases (especially the year they drew for the LeBron pick as Memphis got #2 in the drawing on a pick they owed to Detroit with only #1 protection. They went from LeBron to nothing with the opening of an envelope). That said, this procedure has unnecessarily left room for conspiracy theories to run rampant as the average fan doesn't understand how this all takes place. Opening things up to the public view would do a lot of damage to the 'lottery is rigged' talk (I understand most of it on this site is tongue in cheek at least), but it could also serve to create just as dramatic moments.

First, by tweaking whatever algorithm/process assigns the combos to disallow a single team to hold all fourteen combos that contain the same first three numbers along with 1-14 as the fourth and you create a situation in which the team getting the pick hangs on that final ping pong ball for every selection! It gives the people commentating something more to discuss than "oh the Bucks are picking right as expected" as they can now show and commentate updated odds on every team's chances right up until the 4th ball is selected (after returning from commercials of course). This can happen with all 3 picks, and the reps from all the selected teams can still have their moment to shine with a brief interview while the machine is being reloaded and whatnot. Finally at the end they can show the final draft order before going back to the game being played.

Of course there is one serious drawback to this, which is the possibility that the selection keeps pulling numbers that need to be re-run (i.e. 1001st combo or one owned by a team already picked). This is extremely unlikely for the 1st pick, but with the 2nd and 3rd it becomes variably more likely depending on which team's have been selected. So it is impossible to guarantee that the entire event will fit neatly in a halftime slot, but if the above suggestion about assigning the combos is used then at least the misses should provide drama and something to discuss while the machine is reloaded as some team(s) would have been one ball away from having the selection being drawn for.

Anyhow, what do you folks think? Am I the only one who would prefer to sit around and nerd out on probabilities or do you think this sounds entertaining as well? Do you prefer the current method, or maybe think the NBA will never accept such a grand idea because then they could no longer cloak their evil lottery rigging ways? Any ideas of your own to spice up this quasi-game 7 for non-playoff teams?

NBA DRAFT LOTTERY

2013-05-21T18:31:08Z

I really want to watch the draft lottery, but I do not have cable does anyone know if there's anywhere on the Internet where I can watch it, or any other place I could watch it. I really don't wanna miss it, I feel like we might be lucky this year. If you have any ideas for me please comment and leave your suggestions from one Blazer fan to another. GO BLAZERS! And have a good day.

Dear Blazers PR department:

2013-05-21T16:02:14Z

Are you aware that the kerfuffle with Lillard and his supposed "entourage" has hit the front page of NBA.com?

The longer you and Lillard sit on the sidelines without commenting, the more people will assume that, because it's not refuted, the statements of the two men who were assaulted were true.

I am actually pretty surprised that there was no immediate response, but now that it's been stewing, isn't there anyone there who understands that getting in front of a story like this is better than hoping that it won't spread? Because, if you haven't noticed, it's spreading, and it's making you look bad.

Just my two cents. I would love to hear Damian's side of this, or at least a response saying that you can't talk about it due to pending legal action, but that there is another story to tell.

But to not say anything?

The silence is hurting my ears and the ears of millions of others. This story was not (and, with that photo, couldn't possibly be) contained. Time to deal with it. Publicly. Now.

Are you aware that the kerfuffle with Lillard and his supposed "entourage" has hit the front page of NBA.com?

The longer you and Lillard sit on the sidelines without commenting, the more people will assume that, because it's not refuted, the statements of the two men who were assaulted were true.

Just my two cents. I would love to hear Damian's side of this, or at least a response saying that you can't talk about it due to pending legal action, but that there is another story to tell.

But to not say anything?

The silence is hurting my ears and the ears of millions of others. This story was not (and, with that photo, couldn't possibly be) contained. Time to deal with it. Publicly. Now.

Matthews vs Batum...to the death...in a trade

2013-05-21T03:13:54Z

So, I put it to you Rip City, if you have to choose either Matthews or Batum as part of a deal that lands a quality starting center or a top 3-4 pick, who do you trade?

If I had to choose, it would easily be Matthews. He was brought here to be a bench player, not a starter. His current situation is a reflection of circumstance. I love his toughness, and his 3pt ability, but the rest of his game clearly has peaked. I cringe with him having the ball in the open court, he can't get to the hoop with any kind of tenacity, and struggles as a rebounder and passer for a starting shooting guard who plays as many minutes as he does. Whereas Batum is a prototypical starting small forward who can do a little bit of everything. He might not have the aggressiveness gene we all wish he had, but in his first year as a featured player, he showed flashes that he could be the ideal 4th option on a contending team. His game still has room to grow, and his talent could allow him to achieve it. On the flip side, what you see is what you get with Wes.

Personally, I don't want to trade either of them. I think Batum is a perfect fit as the starting 3, and Wes is perfectly suited to be your sparkplug off the bench. It's just a matter of getting the missing pieces via trading/using our draft picks and shrewd free agency spending. Of all the potential scenario's I've seen proposed by BEdgers, I still funnel back to using picks and cash to attempt a trade for Gortat. And then going hard after Tyreke Evans as the FA splash, with OJ Mayo being the plan B.

There is a lot of banter going on about if the right deal comes along, do we part with one of these two. There have been other articles stating that these two players are somewhat redundant in that they both provide deft 3pt shooting (something key in Stotts's offense), good character, limited ballhandling and getting to the hoop skills, average to sometimes situationally above average defense, and disappear at key times throughout a game. So, I put it to you Rip City, if you have to choose either Matthews or Batum as part of a deal that lands a quality starting center or a top 3-4 pick, who do you trade? If I had to choose, it would easily be Matthews. He was brought here to be a bench player, not a starter. His current situation is a reflection of circumstance. I love his toughness, and his 3pt ability, but the rest of his game clearly has peaked. I cringe with him having the ball in the open court, he can't get to the hoop with any kind of tenacity, and struggles as a rebounder and passer for a starting shooting guard who plays as many minutes as he does. Whereas Batum is a prototypical starting small forward who can do a little bit of everything. He might not have the aggressiveness gene we all wish he had, but in his first year as a featured player, he showed flashes that he could be the ideal 4th option on a contending team. His game still has room to grow, and his talent could allow him to achieve it. On the flip side, what you see is what you get with Wes. Personally, I don't want to trade either of them. I think Batum is a perfect fit as the starting 3, and Wes is perfectly suited to be your sparkplug off the bench. It's just a matter of getting the missing pieces via trading/using our draft picks and shrewd free agency spending. Of all the potential scenario's I've seen proposed by BEdgers, I still funnel back to using picks and cash to attempt a trade for Gortat. And then going hard after Tyreke Evans as the FA splash, with OJ Mayo being the plan B.

Poll

If you had to choose one to trade, who is it?

Could Blazers be looking at Oden?

2013-05-20T20:48:47Z

A friend of mine was out to dinner at Matador over the weekend, and said he saw Oden there eating with some friends. Not sure why Greg would be back in town, considering recent reports have had him working out in Indiana in preparation for free agency.

This is pure speculation of course, but could the Blazers be taking a look at him to see if he is back in playing condition and would be willing to come back if the job is right? Or does he still have a place here in town that he just likes to visit from time to time?

OT: J.J. Abrams and Star Trek: Into Darkness

2013-05-20T08:19:36Z

From time to time we allow interesting off-topic Fanposts during the off-season. As long as they're clearly marked "OT", of good quality, will generate intelligent discussion, and don't crowd out the basketball talk we might even encourage them. I wanted to offer one today covering the newest Star Trek movie release, J.J. Abrams' Star Trek: Into Darkness. I've seen it twice now and I'd like to share some thoughts and hear those of other people.

This is not a movie review as such. It's certainly not the kind you'd read if you're deciding whether to see the film. It's pretty good. Go see it, then come back and discuss. I'm not going over the whole plot here but there are spoilers, so be warned. This is for people who have seen the movie.

Here's what I like about the Abrams Trek movies so far:

Character Portrayal

I love how Abrams and the actors have updated the characters. You find endearing connections to the old, iconic characters combined with new reasons to root for all of them. This was a landmine waiting to explode. From Kirk's new vulnerability and desire for command to Spock's wit to the kick-butt style of Uhura and Sulu you can't help but saying, "Yeah! Fun! And funny!" In two films these guys have done more to bring life to Star Trek characters than the 10 films before them combined. Of particular note: the supporting cast. Original cast Chekovs and Scottys (not to mention Next Gen Crushers and Trois) would have killed for scenes like the new supporting characters are getting. This was the trickiest part of the transition and they aced it. Brilliant choices, brilliant work.

Special Effects

The special effects are nothing short of amazing. They're neither overwhelming nor flat. They're pretty, well-timed, and fit in. Yes, I even enjoy the lens flares. They remind me that I'm watching a new thing, not just the old thing redone. I have a small logical quibble in that Star Fleet's ship designers must have gotten tired with all the AutoCad work because they wasted a TON of space in this version of the Enterprise. "Yes...we, uh...need Engineering to be 50 stories high with huge open spaces! The warp engines are...air-cooled? Just draw a huge circle in the blueprints on every deck. Done!" But I understand that the ship is movie-big so things can fall a long way and go boom inside of it. I'm good with that.

Not Being Afraid of Change

In fact that's the other thing I admire, that Abrams and company just went balls out and said, "Look, we're making a movie here." They cast "Into Darkness" as a summer action flick with Star Trek characters rather than a Star Trek movie with action bits. Whatever you think of the philosophy, you have to respect them sticking to their guns. Trying to jump the movie/TV fence all but killed the earlier Trek films. They seldom felt right. And to be fair, it may not have been possible to take two casts you felt comfortable with in your living room for years and splash them up on a cinema screen without losing intimacy. It'd be like seeing your own family up there. Even if they did a cool movie it wouldn't quite feel right. With the reboot they rightly said, "Film, film, and only film!" The linear aim and coherent conventions make a huge difference. Bravo for having the guts to do it.

Many of the objections people make to the new films have to do with already-established Trek canon. I give the filmmakers a near-total pass on that as well. Many of those things were just writer-producer decisions convenient to telling a particular story. If the new stories are different then these writers and producers shouldn't be bound to non-essentials. I'll not complain that Carol Marcus was never in Star Fleet but now is, nor about Kirk going directly to the Enterprise Captain's Chair without serving aboard previous ships. You couldn't make the moves these guys are making otherwise. If their story is good, put the Trek Bible away and embrace the alternate universe-ness of it all.

I explain that because I do have some complaints/critiques about this film. I want you to understand that I'm not trying to hold the filmmakers to standards or stories that they aren't already using and depending on. In addition to the praise above, I'm going to argue that a few unnecessary and/or sloppy moves took the film down a few notches from what it should have been. The reviews, while generally positive, tended to say, "Something was missing here." I agree, although I think the "something missing" had more to do with a few facile (and ultimately incorrect) choices than it did with any omission.

The most glaring choice was the level of violence portrayed. Again, I'm cool with the "Summer Action Flick" motif and I understand that a superhero movie is going to have some punching and shooting. Gene Roddenberry tried to avoid all that stuff but he's at peace now and the franchise was dead in the theaters before this incarnation. I'm fine with a little revolution in the violence department. I'm cool with phasers firing staccato punches instead of long, lazy beams. I was cool with Kirk's bar fight in the beginning of the first Abrams movie. It had context, humor, and it showed that New Kirk wasn't going to be the perfect superhero of the old show. They needed to parse out his attributes: heroism to Spock, taking care of business to Sulu, swagger to Uhura, etc. It was like they apologized for four decades of William Shatner's Kirk in two minutes of haymakers, announcing to the world that this was going to be a true ensemble crew. Got it. Appreciated it. Make his nose bleed.

But "Into Darkness" took the violence to another level, portraying it with little purpose but itself and/or its shock value. Just considering hand-to-hand combat you had:

1. Kirk punching Khan 5-6 times across the jaw without remorse after Khan had surrendered.

2. Khan crushing the skull of the Admiral with everything shown except the decisive moment, which was portrayed by a sickly crunching sound effect and the camera tight on a female character screaming in shock.

3. Spock breaking Khan's arm by snapping it backwards over Spock's shoulder

4. Spock raining blow after blow to Khan's face/head while straddling Khan after Khan had gone down stunned. The swings were shown full on.

5. After Uhura called off Spock from that rampage, he took the still-helpless Khan into custody with a huge uppercut which made the screen go black with a sickening crunch.

The key here is that these characters weren't Wolverine-like superheroes with metallic claws whom you might expect to rampage and whom you'd never meet in real life. Rather these characters were portrayed with witty, endearing dialogue designed to draw you into relationship and very human empathy with them. Then without remorse or pause those same characters were unleashed in frightening, uncontrolled, even sickening moments like this. It's like getting to know a kid as a friend and then watching him get mad at another kid, deck him on the playground, then straddle him and punch him until his head starts to cave. You know what? No matter how nice that kid seemed 20 minutes ago you need to get away from him and never go back, cuz that kid needs help.

The filmmakers could have conveyed the same message with a more subtle portrayal and still kept the characters Trek-level-close. They chose not to.

Other scenes of gun violence appeared to last forever as well. These weren't so much objectionable as tired. Khan's decimation of the Klingons looked like it was lifted straight from Rambo or Predator. The Star Fleet Headquarters massacre was lifted straight from Godfather III. It's worth noting that those movies were Rated R. Trek wasn't, but not because the violence itself was less, simply because they didn't show as much blood or bodies exploding from it. In every other way it was every bit as jarring...and derivative. As I said, I don't mind a little re-working of Roddenberry's views on violence, but this would have left him aghast...like you massacred his whole vision of the future. You can go there, but you better be really innovative or have a really good reason for it. Neither happened here. The cost-benefit ratio of these scenes didn't add up.

Speaking of cost-benefit ratio, can anybody tell me what Spock's Vulcan identity means now? One of the strong messages of Into Darkness was that Spock was letting loose a little bit, allowing himself to be affected by Kirk and Uhura. But that mission was accomplished wonderfully the moment he shed a tear in the Wrath of Khan Radiation Reversal. That should have been his crowning emotional surrender. Instead the ultimate fruit of his emotion was him beating Khan's face again...and again...and again...then grabbing a metal object and hitting him again...then delivering an uppercut to knock him out before taking him into custody. I get the revenge motif, but most "highly illogical" human beings wouldn't give in to that impulse even if somebody had been responsible for the death of a friend. We might want to, which was the purpose of the moment on film I suppose. But here we got to live out our most base, revenge-filled instincts through...Spock?

Forget whether the message and moment were appropriate, just ask what this New Spock is good for now? What does his logic mean? How about protestations of non-violence and restraint and the moral high road? Can he ever play those cards with a straight face again? And yet 15 minutes before that scene and 5 minutes after he was back to his same old dialogue. The filmmakers put in a scene like that and then expected us to act like it changed nothing. If it changed nothing, then what was the point? Why spend that kind of capital on a non-consequential moment, leaving it as the culmination of Spock's journey in the film?

The filmmakers have created a problem for themselves here. In the old series Spock's logic was a fully-formed and closely-held philosophy which then led to entertaining banter with characters of different philosophies...at once entertainment and a mirror for our human condition. In one, poorly-chosen scene Abrams has now revealed that New Spock's logic exists for the sake of the entertaining banter but runs not much deeper than that. As such, the scripted back-and-forth drifts away from revelation into banal formula, becoming far less entertaining in the process. They're subverting the very thing they're trading on.

Granted, the Spock tradition is embedded so deeply into our culture that we'll probably just accept that he's still logical no matter how many punches he throws, but the filmmakers took away all support for his logic from their films and left us leaning on the bare and cracked ice of the original. That was a mistake, especially when they're so freely deconstructing and re-purposing the conventions of the old series elsewhere. It feels manipulative.

In any case, judging just by the new movies, there's now no reason or purpose for Spock to be Vulcan. The ears are his only distinctive racial feature. Other than the points he might as well be an odd human with extra strength and some kind of logic disorder. That Zachary Quinto plays a FANTASTIC Spock--far better than Leonard Nimoy does at this point--rubs salt in the wounds.

The sad part here was that they had a much richer scene right in front of them. Earlier in the film Uhura had been upset with Spock for being, in essence, too logical, making their relationship difficult. She wanted more open emotion from him. They fought, they resolved, at least tenuously. Now Spock's on that transport thing getting his lunch handed to him by Khan in a really cool Confrontation of the Superheroes that never happened in the original because it was always Khan vs. Kirk. But then here comes Uhura beaming down to stun Khan, playing a little bit of the hero herself and saving her man. Great reversal, great scene so far!

In the actual movie Uhura had to shoot Khan, like, seven times to actually get him down (which made no sense because Scotty had stunned him with one shot earlier in the film), which left Spock coming in to mop up with his punches. That stunk. Uhura wasn't really the hero and you fractured Spock's character for the sake of that violent mop-up.

The resolution hanging right in front of their faces was to have Uhura down Khan with one shot as usual...hero lady saves her man. Go 24th-century equality! But then half because he knows Khan won't stay stunned long and half because he's screaming for revenge inside, Spock goes to beat down Khan while he's prone. You see it in Spock's eyes. You read the tension in his fists. His arm goes back. Quinto gets a great moment to play this revenge motif, except instead of doing it with blunt fists raining down we have to see it in every line of his body...a great acting challenge. You know he's going to do it. He's going to cave in Khan's head right there. Then Uhura realizes what's about to happen and what a betrayal it would be to everything that makes Spock who he is. So she yells, "Spock!" Maybe she jumps and grabs his arm before it descends and/or wraps him in an embrace to snap him back. Then Spock says, "I thought you wanted me less logical." To which she replies, "What are you talking about? I adore logic." (Or something to that effect.)

Not only have you avoided breaking Spock here (even though you know he wanted to abandon everything he stands for in that moment) you have brought home a bigger point about Uhura and Spock and relationships. She may think she wants her guy different but really she loves him because he's like he is. She's confronted right there with the horror of seeing what such a change would create in him. She realizes she wouldn't love that more overtly emotional Spock as much as she thought she would. The price of having--and being able to trust--the guy she loves is letting him be him...which means occasionally watching him be a little too dispassionately self-sacrificing inside of a volcano. That's a good deal, actually, as it would be for all of us who think we want our significant others to change but don't think through what that would mean for them or us.

Khan gets bagged up, Spock remains Spock while showing that somewhere inside there's still another side to him, Uhura looks even more boss, and Spock + Uhura gets more depth and meaning. In the end an emotional, human relationship kept him Vulcan. He needs these people (and particularly Uhura) after all.

You're really telling me that any sick thrill of watching Spock throw down on an already-downed man was worth sacrificing all that in the balance? It wasn't. It was just sloppy, following the action motif too far.

The film had some other sloppy mistakes of internal logic and film-making both. A few:

--Judging by the return trip the distance between the Klingon homeworld and/or Klingon Neutral Zone and earth is apparently about 15 seconds by warp in this universe. This leads to all kinds of political (and credibility) problems.

--Distance came into play again when the Enterprise got stuck dead at about the moon's distance when trying desperately to return to earth--announcing that they couldn't make their destination--but then when the final ship explosions were done, without ever having regained engine power or moved, they found themselves falling into earth's atmosphere. You can't make distance an important plot device in one scene and then ignore it in the next.

--The whole torpedo-and-cryogenic-tank thing was convoluted. If they were Khan's freezers, why were they armed with explosives? Wouldn't he have removed the detonation devices? But if he did that and the Federation fixed them, how did they not discover the bodies in there? One side or the other had to be pretty oblivious to make that work.

--Speaking of, how stupid were the people on the Admiral's ship to let Scotty on board in the first place and then never find him when he was sabotaging the joint left and right? Nobody ran an internal sensor scan or, you know, just called roll? The one incredibly stupid security guard I can almost live with, but the whole technologically-superior ship being run by a crew with an IQ of 30 is hard to swallow.

--I hate it when writers drop in a serious analogy to real-world stuff as a side matter in a script and don't resolve it. The torpedoes were an obvious comparison to long-range U.S. drones going after enemy targets. Spock was against that, I guess? Then Kirk came around to his way of thinking? But then they had no trouble following their baser instincts into other things. Were the drones good or bad or what? They just kind of morphed into something different and then the writers appeared to bail out with, "Well this is just an action flick!" OK, then don't bring up the obvious and clumsy deeper comparisons to begin with.

--Benedict Cumberbatch had an interesting take on Khan. I was quite relieved he didn't try to follow in Ricardo Montalban's footsteps. He was great...except the camera totally exposed him in a profile shot when he was in sick bay. From the front or back he was striking. From the side you saw that he was incredibly skinny and that his chin was weaker than month-old tea. Having that weak of a profile totally subverted the Khan image and the camera folks should have protected him better.

--Similarly in one scene on the Enterprise when Spock was running his hair (wig?) bobbed up so profoundly it looked like Black Adder or a Bobby Moynihan bowl cut when he's playing a kid/fool in a Saturday Night Live skit. The comedic value betrayed the urgency of the moment, which was when he was running down to find Kirk in his death throes.

There were a few more, but I'm not trying to bag on the film too much. I actually liked it both times. My points are two:

1. There are good reasons people are getting the impression that it was a little bit "off" even if they can't name what the "off" was. In most cases it's the filmmakers subtly (or not-so subtly) betraying some of the same foundations on which they are trying to build their film and its characters. The problem isn't them betraying the old canon, but their own assumptions. People sense when you're not being consistent even if they can't name exactly why because they're distracted by the flash and pop.

2. In almost every case these things were unnecessary--not really being integral to the story--and avoidable. Either they got stubborn and went with action movie conventions even when they didn't fit or they just went for a couple of lazy outs.

I once had a math teacher who said she got madder at students who got a 97% on their tests than those who got 75%. If you got 75% you legitimately didn't know some of the material. But if you got 97% you knew everything. You could have gotten 100% but you just got sloppy.

I'm not sure Star Trek: Into Darkness was a 97% film but the filmmakers knew their stuff. They made a good picture but a problematic one as well. With a little more attention to detail, creativity, and integrity they could have registered an easy "A". That they didn't is frustrating. But maybe they'll pick up on some of this for next time.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)