|
I can't directly remember any scenes or shots that were "CHECK OUT THE THREE DEE" in your face, but I'm sure there were a couple. Aside from some of the ghosting (due to being in the front row at IMAX) I forgot I was watching a 3D movie at some points.
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Olmos, Naveen Andrews, Hrithik Roshan, Ajay Devgan, or Aamir Khan would've kicked the poo poo out of Cumberbatch in terms of playing Khan. Naveen Andrews Khan? Holy poo poo, just take my wallet and my bank accounts, I want to see that movie right now
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:In a very general sense maybe but I don't see how any of those things are at all similar to anything portrayed in Star Trek. KIRK: Bones, do you remember the twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent? Two giant powers involved, much like the Klingons and ourselves. Neither side felt could pull out. MCCOY: Yes, I remember. It went on bloody year after bloody year. KIRK: What would you have suggested, that one side arm its friends with an overpowering weapon? Mankind would never have lived to travel space if they had. No. The only solution is what happened back then. Balance of power. MCCOY: And if the Klingons give their side even more? KIRK: Then we arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power. The trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides. -Kirk, after arming a native population against a rival tribe to further a conflict with the Klingons; a decidedly not-colonialist thing to do Cmdr. Chekov: We all agree that every culture is entitled to inalienable human rights... Azetbur: "In-alien." If you could only hear yourselves...human rights. The very name is racist." Brig. Gen. Kerla In any case, we know where this is leading: the annihilation of our culture. Dr. McCoy: That's not true! Brig. Gen. Kerla: No? Dr. McCoy: No! Gen. Chang: "To be or not to be?" That is the question which preoccupies our people, Captain Kirk. We need breathing room. Capt. James Kirk: Earth. Hitler, 1938. - Star Trek VI, a movie not at all about colonialism. Danger fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Neowyrm posted:Sorry this is old, but... 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Danger posted:- Star Trek VI, a movie not at all about colonialism. You can cherry pick quotes out of context all day but you're starting to veer away from talking about Star Trek and the mission of Starfleet being inherently colonial, which is what began this discussion in the first place. Also, being about colonialism and being pro-colonial are not at all the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Maybe they're different movies. (This was in regards to Khan's portrayal in STID being radically different from prior appearances) While I think Into Darkness and Cumberbatch's performance should be judged on their own merits independently of prior films, I don't think you can really blame people for being disappointed that Khan here doesn't recall Khan of old. We had every reason to expect he'd be given at least the same consideration that the original crew was, or more in fact, since according to the narrative he was the one character who had every reason to be exactly the way we remember him. Anton Yelchin may not look anything like Walter Koenig, but he still talks like how we think Chekov should (can you imagine if they made *him* British out of nowhere?). Zoe Saldana's Uhura may not act much like Nichelle Nichols, but at the very least she's still black, you know? This isn't a case like James Bond, who's been in 23 movies and we're at the point where we welcome alternate takes on the character. This is Khan's first appearance in over 30 years, it isn't an instance where I (and some others) were in the mood for seeing liberties taken on the character. I actually think this is reflected a bit in the whitewashing complaints: yeah, casting a Mexican guy to play an Indan is nearly as dubious as casting a British guy, but Khan meant something to us, and to replace his (apparent on-screen) ethnicity takes away a big part of what made him a memorable character (hell, I practically hear spanish guitars strumming in my head when I think of Khan under Ricardo Montalban). To SuperMechaGodzilla: what's your take on First Contact? I love the movie and I know you don't but that's fine with me, I just think the movie deserves a better critique than 'Picard kind-of-sort-of-when-you-think-about-it acts a little more traumatized here than in the show' or, per this thread 'there aren't enough dolly shots' (really, goons?), and I trust you have a more interesting opinion than that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Genetic supermen do not exist. Khan is a metaphorical character. There's a reason he lies dormant, and continues to lie dormant at the end. The warehouse full of frozen dudes is a Indiana Jones reference - to the Lost Ark in its crate. Khan is pretty much the wrath of god, with his fury and savagery. This works really well. When you open Khan's box, he makes your head explode!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I can't directly remember any scenes or shots that were "CHECK OUT THE THREE DEE" in your face, but I'm sure there were a couple. Aside from some of the ghosting (due to being in the front row at IMAX) I forgot I was watching a 3D movie at some points. But yeah, it doesn't bombard you with that stuff. I thought it settled in pretty nicely.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
The only part that seemed like 1950's "YOU ARE WATCHING A THREE DIMENSIONAL MOVING PICTURE" was when Cumberbatch stuck his arm through the hole in the glass wall toward the camera. I imagined him, Kirk and Bones going, "WhooOOOOOOOah, WHOOOOOOAAH, whooooOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAooooooohhhh!"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:You can cherry pick quotes out of context all day but you're starting to veer away from talking about Star Trek and the mission of Starfleet being inherently colonial, which is what began this discussion in the first place. Also, being about colonialism and being pro-colonial are not at all the same thing. I'm not sure why those are cherry picked just because they reinforce my point, in face I expressly described the context of them. Also they directly discuss the "misson" of Star Fleet (which is inherently colonial, as I have previously noted). I also never said that Star Trek as a whole is "pro-colonial", but certainly about colonialism and it's modern expression. For instance, TNG and DS9 were both at times very aware and critical of these themes from the original: quote:"Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis? We've never harmed you and yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join! You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways, you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Riso posted:Interestingly there were also 84 pods mentioned in the original show, but 12 failed. Even more interestingly is that there were 84 pods total in Space Seed, 12 failed. Leaving 72. In the movie, where Khan is woken 5-6 years earlier, there were 72 pods plus his. This would be perfect if we assume that they were failing every few years--waking him up early means one more working pod. I have no idea, of course, if this wasn't just a mistake in addition by the writers, but it's neat especially if it was intentional.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Khan was going to be Dr. Gonzo at some point. but he dropped out. it would've been great
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Danger posted:If Khan is the 'diabolical revolutionary' (which is certainly an apt description, and comparison with Zizek's take on Bane), then the message the film gives us regarding the moral responsibility to seek a purer, cleaner capitalism is more insidious in STID. The whitewashing of Khan (and Bane) specifically inverts the expectation of the revolutionary figure as a nomadic war machine (the dangerous Other to the state), depicting instead an aspect of the liberal state that has been appropriated for its own use. I don't think Khan is easily reducible to 'a British dude'. Cumberbatch plays Khan as a (rather literal) pod person, full of unsettling petit objet a tics and nuances. People have been debating Khan's visible minority status, but racial conflict has always been a disguise for class war. If this Khan is 'white' (debatable, since he is textually a weirdo ethnic alien who can pass for white but is nonetheless denied any rights by the 'progressive' Federation) he is, put crudely, a 'white trash' Tea Party Khan. Into Darkness, as you note, accurately depicts how the state feeds upon that which struggles against it. The war machine does not have real war as its object until it is appropriated by the state: "When the war machine becomes a collaboration machine, it immediately falls into the trap of Enlightenment ideology, imposing a “common ground” upon all differences so that they may centripetally organize themselves toward a common goal." (Rob Marzec, "The War Machine and Capitalism," II:17) This imposition of a 'common ground', a 'filial relation', is the case at the beginning of the film. It is the dark core of Trek - the liberal status quo that I was writing about earlier, and that you're referring to here. However, by the end of Into Darkness, Kirk's goal is to preserve “a framework of alliance” that delays the objective of war from being forced onto the war machine. "In its potential state of “pure Idea,” war is the non-positive ground of the war machine and of nomadic movement, but it is also a positive (in the sense of “productive,” or “liberatory”) function in that it appears in the form of an antagonism directed against all forms of sovereignty." (ibid, II:19) I interpret Khan's refreezing and the Enterprise's severing of all ties with Earth (to wander the stars for five years) as exactly this. The "pure idea" of war is held onto, but only as a potential. Kirk does not excise Khan but, rather, becomes Khan - with the Enterprise serving (for the first time) as his Botany Bay. This is not a return to 'the purity of the original series' but something altogether new, because no prior Trek films or shows are exempt from Into Darkness' criticism. It's basically an anti-Trek film. Or, rather, a sort of Super-Trek - more Trek than Trek itself.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I don't think Khan is easily reducible to 'a British dude'. Cumberbatch plays Khan as a (rather literal) pod person, full of unsettling petit objet a tics and nuances. How are his tics petit objet a? Are you sure you know what that means?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
I take it as Cumberbatch's Khan representing the film's 'absent center', saying that his "authenticity has to leave traces in the film’s texture" (ala Zizek, as he described the similar character of Bane to another established franchise0. I don't think that Khan is a direct analogue of, or the new Star Trek films are direct returns to, the prior work as they are clearly entrenched in the War on Terror as opposed to the previous works in the franchise; however it is still a pointed comment that the perfectly created Indian warlord is here a Brit. Or maybe I'm misunderstaning.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:How are his tics petit objet a? Are you sure you know what that means? "To these two Reals [the imaginary and symbolic Reals], we have to add a third Real, that of a mysterious je ne sais quoi, the unfathomable "something" that makes an ordinary object sublime - what Lacan called l'objet petit a. There is, in science fiction horror movies, a figure of alien opposed to that of the irrepresentable and all-devouring monster of Scott's Alien, a figure immortalized in a whole series of films from the early 1950s whose most famous representative is The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. An ordinary American wanders somewhere in the half-abandoned countryside, when his car breaks down, so he goes for help to the closest small town; soon, however, he notices that something strange is going on in the town - people behave in a strange way, as if they are not fully themselves. It becomes clear to him that the town is already taken over by the aliens who penetrated and colonized human bodies, controlling them from within: although the aliens look and act exactly like humans, there is as a rule a tiny detail which betrays their true nature (a strange glimpse in their eyes; too much skin between their fingers or between their ears and heads). This detail is the Lacanian objet petit a, a tiny feature whose presence magically transubstantiates its bearer into an alien. In contrast to Scott's alien who is totally different from humans, the difference is here minimal, barely perceptible - and are we not dealing with the same in our everyday racism? Although we are ready to accept the Jewish, Arab, Oriental other, there is some detail which bothers us in the West: they way they accentuate a certain word, the way they count money, the way they laugh. This tiny feature renders them aliens, no matter how they try to behave like us." (link)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
I felt his role was very ethereal in some fashion.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
You know what, I liked it. It's full of flaws like hell and wish for a better overall story but it showed a lively future, the actors knocked it out of the park, had good character moments and interaction to the point I bought the relationships, and it hopefully set the stage for something more adventurous than actiony and hopefully it will get away from Abrams now. There's a lot of crap there too but there's potential for a lot of great stuff now in the hands of a better director. The action feels forced and I'd be happy with a movie full of characters shooting the poo poo and having fun or something. EDIT: Something original for the next adventure please, don't rehash anything from the original Trek. Gatts fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Something I haven't seen enough praise for this far is the music and sound design. Into Darkness simply sounds beautiful. Despite its bombasticy, Khan's theme is great, and I'm glad they didn't lean as heavily on the Enterprising Young Men theme as they did in Trek '09.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Something I haven't seen enough praise for this far is the music and sound design. Into Darkness simply sounds beautiful. Despite its bombasticy, Khan's theme is great, and I'm glad they didn't lean as heavily on the Enterprising Young Men theme as they did in Trek '09. I was just talking about this in the TVIV thread. The big difference between this movie and any old Star Trek movie, such as TWOK, where the soundtrack was so memorable, is that you can barely hear it. In the theater it's buried under sfx and explosions, whereas in TWOK you can really hear Horner's stuff. Listening to the ID soundtrack on it's own, it's really good. I wish it got more of it's due in the movie. But I think that's just modern film for ya.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
As much as I like casting individuals that befit the ethnic makeup of their character, I think I'd have real trouble buying an Indian (dot, not feather) as someone who could crush a man's skull with his bare hands. Although Sikhs *are* like 90% of Indian athletes, so it would make a little more sense. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Astroman posted:I was just talking about this in the TVIV thread. The big difference between this movie and any old Star Trek movie, such as TWOK, where the soundtrack was so memorable, is that you can barely hear it. In the theater it's buried under sfx and explosions, whereas in TWOK you can really hear Horner's stuff. Listening to the ID soundtrack on it's own, it's really good. I wish it got more of it's due in the movie. But I think that's just modern film for ya. I didn't have any trouble hearing the music in my theater, and I thought the soundtrack was great. edit: ^  What does being Indian have to do with it?This man is Indian: 
Snak fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Narciss posted:As much as I like casting individuals that befit the ethnic makeup of their character, I think I'd have real trouble buying an Indian (dot, not feather) as someone who could crush a man's skull with his bare hands. Although Sikhs *are* like 90% of Indian athletes, so it would make a little more sense. Eh? Like they're a peaceful people or something?  You can't buy that guy as a super man crushing people's skulls?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Narciss posted:As much as I like casting individuals that befit the ethnic makeup of their character, I think I'd have real trouble buying an Indian (dot, not feather) as someone who could crush a man's skull with his bare hands. Although Sikhs *are* like 90% of Indian athletes, so it would make a little more sense. The fact that you have boxed an entire racial group as incapable of projecting sufficient physical threat (as opposed to, you know, a rail-thin white guy) is a reason not to whitewash. Assuming this isn't a joke-racist post.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
The fact that he actually said "dot, not feather" leads me to believe he's trolling. And by "believe" I mean "hope".
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Unmature posted:The only part that seemed like 1950's "YOU ARE WATCHING A THREE DIMENSIONAL MOVING PICTURE" was when Cumberbatch stuck his arm through the hole in the glass wall toward the camera. I imagined him, Kirk and Bones going, "WhooOOOOOOOah, WHOOOOOOAAH, whooooOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAooooooohhhh!" Speaking of, the movable re-sizable hole is something I want right now. For just a moment Aperature Labs* had designed a bit of Starfleet equipment. *I would compltely poo poo myself if the new Star Trek computer ended up with a Glados voice. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
So, just saw this today with my dad. It was really cool actually, dad and me have had a big bond over Star Trek, the day I was born he held me and we watched (or, he watched and I was a less than 1 day old baby still trying to figure out why everything is bright and loud) Next Generation. Since then we've always been able to bond over Trek. He hasn't seen a 3D movie in like, 30 years so he demanded we see it in 3D, and shockingly it was pretty ok. I have basically no real feelings either way for modern 3D stuff, so I was pleasantly surprised most of the effects were depth focused to create a more pleasing and organic visual than "OH LOOK AT THIS COMING RIGHT FOR YOU", even the cheesy "Khan reaches his hand out right at YOU YES YOU THE VIEWER" was neat. As for the movie itself we both loved it. We both loved Cumberbatch, we loved the story, we loved the cast (though we enjoyed the first JJTrek already so no real shocks there), it was all a great movie experience for us. Cumberbatch's Khan, while of course in my ideal world I'd like him to look more like Montalban, was pretty much dead on. It's no real shock though, the dude's entire acting history is playing a menacing genius type over and over again, this time he just kicked it up a few notches. Reversing the famous death scene worked really well because the whole point was tying it into the movie's story instead of just making it a "Hey, hey nerds, remember this?". It was a reference, but it was organic, and it fit the story, and that's what matters. This was just generally a really solid movie that had a great cast and a fun experience. It had plot holes, but, well, every Trek movie does. As others have pointed out, the old Trek stuff spoke to old morality, especially TOS era, they're great stories, but they're dated. This movie's morals had to be updated to be relevant. We don't give a gently caress about communists and cold wars, we have hot wars of very morally questionable roots, you have to speak to those ideals for it to work. This movie did that, and not in a hamfisted way. Kirk made his call, but it cost him, he did the right thing but he suffered for it, Admiral Marcus did what he felt was right and The Federation suffered for it. No one really won in the end, Kirk lost his mentor, had his faith in The Federation shaken, and straight up died only to be revived by the blood of Khan. Marcus died a villain a the hands of his own monster. Khan did his damage but not enough, men like Kirk still proudly wear the Federation symbols even if they question it. It was a tragedy, but it was also something our heroes can recover from, albeit changed. That's how this kind of story has to be told, and that's something not that different from Wrath of Khan, at its core. I'm really hopeful for the inevitable sequel, I hope the 'blood of Khan' comes into play, even if Khan remains on ice.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
One thing has been bothering me since I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago: can Spock take Worf in a fist fight? Wikipedia says Vulcans are three times stronger than humans, but it doesn't say how strong Klingons are.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
TNG Worf almost certainly. DS9 Worf: Hell no.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
According to various Trek shenanigans Vulcans are the strongest, while Klingons are apparently very difficult to kill.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:TNG Worf almost certainly. I don't remember ever seeing/hearing anything about Klingons being naturally stronger than Humans, only that they have extra bone as natural armor (head, ribcage) and multiple redundant organs. So even if they aren't way stronger, they're a lot tougher and capable of enduring injury that would kill a Human or Vulcan. In a "who would win?" Scenario, I'd say flip a coin really.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:TNG Worf almost certainly. Old Kirk ~ Klingon Spock > New Kirk Therefore, Spock > Klingon Also, Young Pon Farr Spock > Klingon On the other hand, Vulcans should be more or less on level with Romulans and Kirk can take a Romulan. Basically, it depends entirely on plot demands.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Movie Klingons: well, in ST3, a teenage Spock in Pon Farr throws a Klingon a few feet, and then an aging human Kirk does about as well against a Klingon as Spock did against Khan, and we know how Kirk fares against Khan, and how Spock fares against Kirk ... Here, let me logically show you why one fictional character could so beat up this other fictional character:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:TNG Worf almost certainly. In TNG every alien of the week would beat up Worf to show how strong they were. As for DS9 Worf, why don't you ask Weyoun bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 13:39 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:In the TNG every alien of the week would beat up Worf to show how strong they where. As for DS9 Work, why don't you ask Weyoun  I *think* linking to AATrek's site is okay?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
The whole Harrison reveal and the del Toro dropping out with Cumberbatch stepping in makes me wonder, too, if we are looking at a film with a horribly mangled script because they quickly rewrote a script around that change. This is just a theory with no evidence to back it up, but it appears they spent a long time just trying to get a script together. I sort of wonder if the original plan was supposed to be del Toro as lead villain with a supporting right hand villain at his side: A Spock to his Kirk. With or without del Toro, they might have already thought about getting Cumberbatch who had just gotten a lot of geek buzz thanks to Sherlock in the last year. Once del Toro decided not to be in the film, they went and combined the once two characters into a single one to maximize the ever-growing Cumberbatch popularity and fan-swooning. I know this sound almost like a stupid thought, but Harrison never really had a 'henchman' type figure that most characters in films like this tend to have: You have the big bad guy, then you have a supporting follower who acts as a voice of concern, reason, exposition, etc., even if they only show up for a scene or two or exist in the background all the time. I know you CAN argue Admiral Marcus is that figure, but he doesn't feel that way to me. Harrison felt like he was missing someone loyal to him he could bounce plot points against. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 14:13 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:In TNG every alien of the week would beat up Worf to show how strong they were. As for DS9 Worf, why don't you ask Weyoun Yep, the Worf Effect - that's what I was referencing. So glad he made the move to DS9. It only gets better in that episode when Weyoun's next clone pays Damar a visit with a wild-eyed glare on his face like he's barely holding back this seething rage, and Damar, who's hammered as usual, is like "Well Hellooo. Hehehehe." I always loved the mutual loathing of the Cardassian/Dominion relationship.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
armoredgorilla posted:I *think* linking to AATrek's site is okay? Yup, you're cool.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
Considering how much money it is making, I guess we're going to get a third Wrath of Khan remake from J.J. (assuming he's not too busy half-assing Star Wars). Look forward to "One crazed super-villain with a doomsday weapon who attacks Earth" coming 2016. What I would like them to do for the next one is have the Enterprise and crew in the middle of a full-scale war with the klingons. The first 15 minutes could be just straight up action showing how the Feds and Klingons are pouring huge amounts of resources into the meat-grinder and how it looks like neither side is going to really walk away with a clear-cut victory. Somehow a plot is uncovered where it becomes apparent that there is a 3rd party pulling the strings and hoping to take advantage of a weakened federation and klingon empire (just to take more territory, not blow up earth!). The enterprise is dispatched to find proof, stop the 3rd party, whatever. Meanwhile there is a klingon commander who has a vendetta against Kirk and the enterprise because they blew up his son's ship or disabled his and didn't even bother to finish him off, he could be chasing Kirk and they eventually have a final battle or work together to defeat the 3rd part. In the end there could be a truce, or both sides ally against the third party. You get your gratuitous action. You get your high-stakes plot You get your intelligent/shadowy enemy. You get your crazy/obsessed villain. And it can all get a nice little bow to end it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Third movie, mirror universe, that is all.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:22
|
|