|
Tuxedo Jack posted:I know I'm the one most people are disagreeing with, but I'm not mad, FWIW. I don't like being called stupid for disliking something, but I'm settled with my opinions. I didn't like Prometheus and I think Trek 09 had lazy writing. Not looking to change anyone's mind about those movies, just explaining why I had issues with them. I'm with you actually. Not mad, just disliking the condescending ire from people who should really know better than to try and be the coolest loser. Supercar Gautier posted:Non-whiny non-pedantic nerds are exempt from my contempt. 1. You felt compelled enough to be on the internet and enter a Star Trek discussion thread. That already makes you nerdier than 3 out of 4 average people. Contempt from that source ain't exactly going to sting. 2. Your contempt ain't poo poo unless it's got actual merit behind it. Half of what I see here are dismissals of opinion because  "You're just upset because you take Star Trek too seriously" or "You din't like Prometheus because you're pedantic." A whole lot of character assassination, little examination of the flaws of the works themselves. It's almost as bad as being one of those Trekkies who defends TMP to death because "it's so intellectual."
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
I had not considered the inherent hypocrisy of criticizing posts about a thing when I have also posted about that thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Danger posted:Also Prometheus is one of last year's best films, if not the best sci-fi genre film in the last 20. Get your poo poo straight. Is this a joke? I enjoyed Prometheus and all but, no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
You know there's a whole terrible thread for complaining about Prometheus. I still feel let down that this movie isn't a retelling of Catspaw but I'll be ok. People getting mad/let down/whatever about one dude's bullet point summary of a film they haven't seen is actually bonkers though. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:There is so much I don't know if NERDS is really the specific enough type of audience being referenced, but it certainly calls up the image I think people are getting at: those who fail to read or engage with film as a work of art in the interest of maintaining some virtual True form of their franchise. Maybe 'Trekies' is better, as it really is the specific audience that Trek '09 is commenting on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:You know there's a whole terrible thread for complaining about Prometheus. I really think they should have made the movie a remake of Assignment: Earth and Threshold.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
With better budget and writing you could totally make a good body horror film out of Threshold.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Danger posted:I don't know if NERDS is really the specific enough type of audience being referenced, but it certainly calls up the image I think people are getting at: those who fail to read or engage with film as a work of art in the interest of maintaining some virtual True form of their franchise. I don't think that's what anyone in this discussion is getting at. The complaints rallied against Trek 09 and the "bullet points" from the new film aren't about things like "Kirk wouldn't do X" or "The Federation isn't Y" - they're more direct complaints against exactly what you're defending. The complaints were about the quality of the writing. And they weren't the common complaint about Lindelof/Abrams penned stuff like the "mystery box" or "unanswered questions." I don't mean to strawman you, but it seems to me you're arguing something like "it doesn't matter if the plot doesn't make sense, because as a whole, the piece of art is good." Just because it's a I'm agreeing to disagree, I was just trying to give evidence to my opinion. You calling me pedantic doesn't qualify your opinion, nor does other people agreeing with you (especially SMG!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:I don't think that's what anyone in this discussion is getting at. The complaints rallied against Trek 09 and the "bullet points" from the new film aren't about things like "Kirk wouldn't do X" or "The Federation isn't Y" - they're more direct complaints against exactly what you're defending. I think it's a mix of both, in that there certainly are many criticisms consisting entirely of "This isn't Star Trek" but also of the type "This scenario or decision doesn't make tactical sense", as if the expectation is that the film depicts some virtual simulation of a real event; both completely missing that what IS depicted is entirely symbolic. So while I guess its valid to air criticisms on the tactical realism (to bring up a probably vague and overused term) of the thing it just isn't at all compelling or meaningful. I disagree that the plot doesn't make sense, but even if it didn't make a lick of sense that wouldn't at all invalidate the story. What plot holes and inconsistencies represent, or at least how they are represented and appear, tend to hold some of the most significant meanings. At the very least, dismissing things as plot holes or inconsistencies is a way of avoiding an actual examination of what the film is representing. You saw this maybe more with Prometheus, but I'm sure there was a lot of it pinned on Trek '09 as well. Star Trek '09 was both visually and narratively consistent and intelligent. edit: And to be clear, I'm not calling you or other people pedantic; I'm saying that those arguments and ways of reading and discussing film are. I'm also not trying to qualify my opinion, it qualifies on it's own. edit2: vvvvvvv Yea like that, thanks for the example. Like, could it be anything other than metaphor? Danger fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
jivjov posted:So wait...you haven't actually seen the film? I mean, I know the leaked plot points sound questionable, but as someone said earlier, you can reduce practically any movie to a list of ridiculous sounding bullet points. You're right, I am sure it's going to be just dandy as hell. I can't wait for Kirk to be WOKEN UP FROM THE loving DEAD by MAGIC SPACE BLOOD. Because you know, that's a thing blood does. There's no context, no writing, no setup whatsoever that makes that legitimate. It's scientifically stupid as hell, narratively suicidal and it completely breaks your entire little universe since now you have a plentiful supply(unlimited once they invent replicators) of magic juice that raises the loving dead. Ugh. But I am sure SMG will be happy to come in here and barf out some nonsense about how it's a giant metaphor where you cannot confront and battle evil without taking a little of it into yourself or some other eyerolling bullshit. Abrams+Lindlehof is so dependably awful, it's practically a universal constant. If any of the names Orci/Kurtzman/Lindlehof appear in the credits, you're going to get a loud and silly mess. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:
Congrats on making the Star Trek equivalent of "The internet is full of racists, deal with it.  "e: AlternateAccount posted:
It's scientifically stupid to have a FTL drive. It's scientifically stupid for travel through time. It's scientifically stupid to come back to life exactly how you are after dying of radiation poisoning and having your body shipped off to a planet. computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:You're right, I am sure it's going to be just dandy as hell. As you've not seen the movie yet, you have no way of knowing if the context, writing, or setup will support the plot point in question. Yes, it sounds sketchy, yes I'm expecting it to fall flat as well, but I'm well prepared to be happily surprised. Neither of us has seen the movie yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
What is the red goo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's scientifically stupid to have a FTL drive. It's scientifically stupid for travel through time. It's scientifically stupid to come back to life exactly how you are after dying of radiation poisoning and having your body shipped off to a planet. There's a difference between in-universe fiction that's internally consistent and doesn't create more problems than it solves and this mess. FTL travel and time travel are fiction, but not completely implausible based on current science and at the very least are mostly used in a way consistent with that. Spock coming back to life with the explanation being LOL PROTOMATTER in ST3 was pretty damned awful. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
jivjov posted:As you've not seen the movie yet, you have no way of knowing if the context, writing, or setup will support the plot point in question. Yes, it sounds sketchy, yes I'm expecting it to fall flat as well, but I'm well prepared to be happily surprised. Neither of us has seen the movie yet. Commendable optimism, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:What is the red goo? Maybe we are lucky and Khan's blood is basically like the pink slime from Ghostbusters 2. It makes Kirk do funny dances with the right music. Or it means that Khan's spirit is in Kirk and he's now more badass Kirk and at some point it'll turn into Metal Gear Solid and the next movie is going to be by Hideo Kojima. In which case, loving AWESOME.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Q is unrealistic burn Trek to the ground
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Maybe we are lucky and Khan's blood is basically like the pink slime from Ghostbusters 2. It makes Kirk do funny dances with the right music. Or it means that Khan's spirit is in Kirk and he's now more badass Kirk and at some point it'll turn into Metal Gear Solid and the next movie is going to be by Hideo Kojima. In which case, loving AWESOME. Yes! That's what I'm talking about! I guess I like the ending because there's a weirdness to it, and weird is high-risk high-reward. I'm an optimist when it comes to taking the story in bizarre directions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:There's a difference between in-universe fiction that's internally consistent and doesn't create more problems than it solves and this mess. FTL travel and time travel are fiction, but not completely implausible based on current science and at the very least are mostly used in a way consistent with that. On the level of implausibility, or at least the acceptable level, is magic teleportation higher or lower? What if its teleportation via wizard vs. via lensflare? What about time traveling whales? When and where did star trek jump the plausibility shark? Anyways, it's a pretty darn silly distinction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Q is unrealistic burn Trek to the ground Q is realistic within the context of the show, that's the difference. It's not inherently contradictory, but blood that somehow leads to a resurrection is not. Khan is a genetic superman, not a minor deity. Would you even let an entire crew of genetically engineered people go free assuming their blood contains the same immeasurably valuable property? Danger posted:On the level of implausibility, or at least the acceptable level, is magic teleportation higher or lower? What if its teleportation via wizard vs. via lensflare? What about time traveling whales? When and where did star trek jump the plausibility shark? Anyways, it's a pretty darn silly distinction. That IS the distinction that makes the things in this movie so irritatingly bad. The nature of Star Trek so wide open you can have things like LITERALLY INEXPLICABLE SPACE MAGIC, which has been done several times and it's fine(well mostly.) What you can't do is redefine the properties of human circulatory fluid. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Danger posted:When and where did star trek jump the plausibility shark? Realism is unimportant if the writing/acting/directing/symbolism works in service to the concept. Q works better than Spock in ST3 because of these factors, not the science behind both. Taking something stupid and making it work is a big part of Trek. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
If you push the boundries of it, Trek has a lot of technology you could go nuts with. You have replicators and transporters. Transporters can store the entirety of a person and even be used to duplicate them (Rikers). You've got a cloning machine. Genetically augment people and clone a whole army of them, there's your space marines. You've eliminated world hunger due to replicators, now expand on that and replicate whole ships in space after building the prototype or inputting the parameters into the machine and then start spitting them out. Need more Datas? EDIT: And the Holodeck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Khan is a genetic superman, not a minor deity. Functionally, thematically, and symbolically, there's no difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Real trekkers know that Spock is not 'actually' humanoid, and that Nimoy/Quinto (Ninto?) stand in symbolically for the concept 'alien' - a human face over weird green innards. This is why they're down with the planet of 1960s gladiators, and the space-witches. Real trekkers made Galaxy Quest. Star Trek 09's detractors are theorhetically incapable of making a Galaxy Quest. The complaint isn't nerds, but nerds who aren't even good at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If you push the boundries of it, Trek has a lot of technology you could go nuts with. You have replicators and transporters. Transporters can store the entirety of a person and even be used to duplicate them (Rikers). You've got a cloning machine. Genetically augment people and clone a whole army of them, there's your space marines. You've eliminated world hunger due to replicators, now expand on that and replicate whole ships in space after building the prototype or inputting the parameters into the machine and then start spitting them out. Need more Datas? Most of these are addressed somewhat, but I seem to remember in the old as hell Technical Manual that replicating something as large as a spaceship would require more energy than could be generated. Large scale replication is used to assist the process, though. I am not a physicist, but assuming that the process of energy->matter requires the amount of energy released in a nuclear explosion to create the amount of matter lost, uhhh... Wow, then it takes a real shitload of energy to make a turkey sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:What you can't do is redefine the properties of human circulatory fluid. Why not? You've yet to provide any argument beyond "I don't like it". Trek does strange things literally all the time. There's no reason that this particular event can't be handled well. Or it could be handled poorly. We don't know yet. On account of us not having seen the movie yet. jivjov fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Functionally, thematically, and symbolically, there's no difference. Is it not different? If we approach the maximum limit of genetic potential, do we transcend humanity as we know it? It would appear not, from what we've seen so far. Do we sacrifice something in the process? Maybe. Are genetic supermen inherently "better" as a whole than us? I suppose that depends on how you want to tell the story and how you want to define better. I really doubt that they are going to work the angle that Khan is somehow now a mystical being with powers completely beyond comprehension within the genome. jivjov posted:Why not? You've yet to provide any argument beyond "I don't like it". Trek does strange things literally all the time. There's no reason that tjos [articular event can't be handled well. Or it could be handled poorly. We don't know yet. On account of us not having seen the movie yet. Because he's already been defined AS HUMAN+. Not as something foreign entirely. And there's nothing in the genome that says Hey, your blood cures death! Uhh, death from radiation? YES! Death from old age? SURE! Death from a giant space mantis shrimp punching you in the face? Yes yes yes! It's so patently absurd on any level and the chance that the writers of this mess have the chops to somehow make something good out of the concept is functionally zero. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Because he's already been defined AS HUMAN+. Not as something foreign entirely. And there's nothing in the genome that says Hey, your blood cures death! Uhh, death from radiation? YES! Death from old age? SURE! Death from a giant space mantis shrimp punching you in the face? Yes yes yes! It's so patently absurd on any level and the chance that the writers of this mess have the chops to somehow make something good out of the concept is functionally zero. Yes, I get it, you're bound and determined to poo poo on this movie before it's out and phrase your argument as "nahnahnah its gonna suck and i hate it and i refuse to entertain the notion that it could possibly play better on screen than in a bullet point list". Come back when you want to at least discuss it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Is it not different? If we approach the maximum limit of genetic potential, do we transcend humanity as we know it? It would appear not, from what we've seen so far. Do we sacrifice something in the process? Maybe. Are genetic supermen inherently "better" as a whole than us? I suppose that depends on how you want to tell the story and how you want to define better. I really doubt that they are going to work the angle that Khan is somehow now a mystical being with powers completely beyond comprehension within the genome. Genetic superhumans and minor deities are both nonexistent fictional humanoid beings defined as superior to the average person. For the purposes of a narrative, they fulfill an identical range of roles. The differences are merely set dressing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Why not? You've yet to provide any argument beyond "I don't like it". Trek does strange things literally all the time. There's no reason that tjos [articular event can't be handled well. Or it could be handled poorly. We don't know yet. On account of us not having seen the movie yet. It's such a baffling demarcation of plausible/implausible to hold firm to. The blood of a superhuman having regenerative properties is so ho-hum for Star Trek. Like people have already mentioned: Q. He alone makes EVERYTHING plausible in Star Trek. What can't Q do? Actually, you know what? I need my enemy's blood to live has already been done. Two movies ago. If you're gonna have an issue with that plot conceit, point out that it was done before (poorly), don't tell me "It's too implausible! GENOMES!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
So umm if Khan's blood is magic and can raise the dead, why didn't he use it on his wife when she died on Ceti Alpha V?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:So umm if Khan's blood is magic and can raise the dead, why didn't he use it on his wife when she died on Ceti Alpha V? That's a different dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:That's a different dude. It's still Khan though. Even if it's a different timeline, there's no reason why he would magic blood in one but not the other. Everything that happened before he got unfrozen should still be basically the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Evidently not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:It's still Khan though. Even if it's a different timeline, there's no reason why he would magic blood in one but not the other. Everything that happened before he got unfrozen should still be basically the same. The spoiler says "it is established early on..." but we don't know the context. Whether that character knows about that ability themselves isn't known for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:So umm if Khan's blood is magic and can raise the dead, why didn't he use it on his wife when she died on Ceti Alpha V? Obviously the magic blood only works if you are currently white.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:You're right, I am sure it's going to be just dandy as hell. This is a childish complaint. You are willing to accept that it's magic space blood, but at the same time unwilling to accept that it can do things that normal blood cannot do. You are getting angry at a science fiction film for containing a science fiction element simply because you find that element implausible. The entire loving film is implausible to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:The spoiler says "it is established early on..." but we don't know the context. Whether that character knows about that ability themselves isn't known for sure. It's possible that's how he saves the little girl from the preview.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:With better budget and writing you could totally make a good body horror film out of Threshold. I'm imagining "Threshold" as a kind of secular Black Hole crossed with The Fly and it's really pretty awesome. This says a lot about how terrible Voyager was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Functionally, thematically, and symbolically, there's no difference. I would argue that this absolutely depends on context (which is a sort of silly thing to say, because everything does, but stick with me here), as to whether a 'superman' is a concept that relates to a deity or 'the best/worst humanity can achieve/man's hubris at playing god etcetera. But in Star Trek, there is a difference, because the universe is populated with fourteen billion kinds of gods and god-like beings, and Khan in presentation was never treated in the same way as those beings. You may say functionally or thematically there's no difference, but Khan doesn't really fit how this particular franchise tends to engage with these concepts. He's much more a vision of personal hubris and revenge (obviously). Thematically, Khan's function is entirely 'the ghosts of the past' and things like that, and his super abilities factor in in terms of his being a threat, and perhaps a dirty secret via the genetic engineering. He's not a god, and Star Trek tends not to treat him as one. But maybe Abrams will, and this is all moot, who knows? All this 'magic blood' talk may imply a thematic change of direction with the character, which is one way to revisit a plot strand and do something new with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 01:28
|
|
