Mrit posted:Old Khan had his years of experience on the surface of a dying planet. He was consumed with anger at Kirk, which was his sole driving factor. He's talking about Khan's first appearance, when Kirk wakes him up on the Botany Bay and Khan nearly takes the Enterprise over in less than 24 hours with nothing more than force of personality and quick thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
Unmature posted:Yeah, but... so? Taking this movie as its own we have NO reference point for how powerful a klingon really is. I guess we see them eff up Kirk, but he got beat up a ton in the first movie.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:He just gets punched a few times at the end and anyone remotely familiar with Trek and the villain speculation goes 'oh it's Khan'. I'm still annoyed at how dumb and useless his assassination attempt on Marcus was though.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Like the last one I found this to be really effective even though it did things that should have made me hate it. It really benefits from having a better villain though, and it felt less contrived and better thought out (mostly.)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Maybe the film mentioned this, but why didn't Khan just defrost his friends? He had access to the cryotubes since he stuck them in the torpedoes. They still had some functionality besides "stay cold" because McCoy sticks Kirk in one and turns it on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Maybe the film mentioned this, but why didn't Khan just defrost his friends? He had access to the cryotubes since he stuck them in the torpedoes. They still had some functionality besides "stay cold" because McCoy sticks Kirk in one and turns it on. The technology is too old. They don't have the technology to defrost them, it was all lost in WWIII. It's like trying to connect a printing press and mimeograph machine to USB. Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Plus the admiral had control of them, then they were on the Enterprise. Unless I missed something?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Plus the admiral had control of them, then they were on the Enterprise. Unless I missed something? Nope, there's no time during the events of the movie that Khan is alone with the torpedoes until the very end.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of how McCoy was willing to potentially kill one of the frozen dudes in order to freeze Kirk. I mean, yeah there was the "keep him in an induced coma" line, but it was established earlier than McCoy knows jack diddly about the cryo tubes.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:The technology is too old. They don't have the technology to defrost them, it was all lost in WWIII. Then how did they defrost Kirk? computer parts posted:Nope, there's no time during the events of the movie that Khan is alone with the torpedoes until the very end. But Khan put his people in the torpedoes. Would Section 31 have said "yup, go ahead"? monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 01:44 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of how McCoy was willing to potentially kill one of the frozen dudes in order to freeze Kirk. I mean, yeah there was the "keep him in an induced coma" line, but it was established earlier than McCoy knows jack diddly about the cryo tubes. He can turn them off, but it'll kill the person inside. Kirk wasn't fully frozen, just enough to slow his brain down. He can't revive someone from a full freeze, just a partial. And it was one of the ones with a dead dude inside. I think
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Then how did they defrost Kirk? Man, here I am complaining about the Cryo tech, but I didn't even catch that little hole. If I had to make a guess (supported only in my own head), it'd be "Because they got back to earth and had time to consult with experts and dig through old records, they deciphered how to use the tubes properly." 7thBatallion posted:And it was one of the ones with a dead dude inside. I think Why would he keep a dead guy in an induced coma?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Then how did they defrost Kirk? Because it happened later and with facilities and personnel available on earth who could reproduce the procedure.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
So, having read the thread now, I guess I wanted to contribute why I decided not to watch Star Trek: Into Darkness. A contrast from the usual "my reaction" posts. To be clear, I made this decision before reading the thread, and only started because I heard that there was controversy and wanted to see what it was. I like Star Trek '09, but something about this one rubbed me off from the beginning. The title bothered me to start with. Star Trek '09 was already pretty drat gloomy. Two entire homeworlds, and billions of people are killed in important plot points. Main characters watch their parents die brutally right in front of them. A guy's tortured into paralysis. The spaceship that looks like it came straight from our collective nightmares. The constant fear and anger that overwhelms every character's emotions, even Spock's. That wasn't dark enough? We need to go more dark than this? Really? The next bit that didn't impressed me was the poster. I'd post one, but really, looking through Google image search they're all basically the same thing. Mean-looking guy with a trenchcoat wades through random debris and destruction. So, everything just really dark and depressing looking. I'm not even complaining about this "not being real Trek". I see movies like Star Trek for escapism, and everything I see about this movie just screams "grimdark misery". I can get that without a 190 million budget and the Star Trek logo thank you very much. Then I read the Current Releases review, and, well, that was just it for me. I immediately guessed from the review's writing that the pasty white trenchcoat dude in the poster had to be Khan, because it was the most pointlessly stupid revelation I could think of that could only possibly serve to placate long-term Trek fans. I wasn't thinking "gently caress racebending" at the time (though having read the thread the argument fits), I was thinking- this guy doesn't look like Khan. He looks like one of those nerds that wears a fedora. And besides that Khan was very goal-oriented. He didn't flap his longcoat around stuff he just destroyed because he was a total evil badass. He only did anything because it had some specific purpose. Now, this was all just guesswork on my part, since I hadn't actually seen the movie, but from what I've read in this thread I'd say my guess was right. (whoever said that Khan was a noble savage is an idiot, by the way. Running an empire that spans a quarter of the world is the opposite of savagery. Learn what words mean.) As a final note, I really like this sentence from the Wikipedia plot summary: quote:McCoy's experiment on a Tribble reveals that Khan's blood contains regenerative properties that may save Kirk. Read that. Read that sentence. If I had shown that to you a year ago, would you have thought I was describing this movie, or a really bad piece of Star Trek fanfiction? Everything I learn about this movie just makes me more disappointed. So, that's why I'm not seeing this movie. Still looks really fun to discuss, I must admit, but a movie's in a pretty bad place if I want to talk about it more than I actually want to see it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
The wiki plot summary is kind of wrong though. The properties of his blood are established WAY earlier in the film.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:He looks like one of those nerds that wears a fedora. You look like one of those nerds that judges a film without seeing it. jivjov posted:Why would he keep a dead guy in an induced coma? Wasn't he just brain dead or almost dead at that point? The plot of this movie wasn't that complex but there were a lot of little details that have escaped me now. I think they could have streamlined the cryo-tube stuff without losing anything. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
I thought they were keeping Kirk in the induced coma. I need to re watch this movie when it comes out on DVD
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:So, having read the thread now, I guess I wanted to contribute why I decided not to watch Star Trek: Into Darkness. A contrast from the usual "my reaction" posts. To be clear, I made this decision before reading the thread, and only started because I heard that there was controversy and wanted to see what it was. Lots of us are with you, don't worry. Don't worry about the venom some of these guys are spitting, you'll see it's a consistent theme in the thread  I'll post the Red Letter Media review for a second time in this thread. It nicely explains, at length, and all the sperglord detail you'd want, why this is a stupid loving movie. http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/ Hey SuperMechagodzilla, you called me out before about this film. Have you watched the above review? I've read some great threads and posts by you, man, but are you actually defending this film? What is your take on the review I've linked?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I thought they were keeping Kirk in the induced coma. I need to re watch this movie when it comes out on DVD The line is something to the effect of "Pull this man out of the tube, and keep him in an induced coma! Freezing the captain is the only way to preserve brain activity"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Because it happened later and with facilities and personnel available on earth who could reproduce the procedure. Smart people like Khan? Why didn't he defrost them when he had access to them, and unsupervised otherwise they wouldn't have ended up in the torpedo tubes in the first place?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Lots of us are with you, don't worry. Don't worry about the venom some of these guys are spitting, you'll see it's a consistent theme in the thread Is it OK if I defend a movie without having to watch/refute a 45-minute video review?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Lots of us are with you, don't worry. Don't worry about the venom some of these guys are spitting, you'll see it's a consistent theme in the thread We all know about RLM and making  posts linking to them over and over doesn't convince anybody of anything. They aren't some special loving authority.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Smart people like Khan? Why didn't he defrost them when he had access to them, and unsupervised otherwise they wouldn't have ended up in the torpedo tubes in the first place? Presumably they were meant to be loaded onto the big fuckoff spaceship that could be flown by 'one, if necessary' and then he'd take it from there?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Hey SuperMechagodzilla, you called me out before about this film. Have you watched the above review? I've read some great threads and posts by you, man, but are you actually defending this film? What is your take on the review I've linked? I agree with RLM (well, Mike) usually, and STID isn't an exception. But I still like the film and can defend why I like it. Is that supposed to not be possible?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Hehe, you can do whatever you like. But rather than note and copy out everything that RLM said, I thought it was just more convienient to link the review. I just think its a good summary about the problems and why I (and many others) didn't find the film engaging. They pretty much are an authority, too. Plinkett hit such a note with so many movie-goers and partciluarly Trek and sci-fi fans that they're pretty well respected and established now. The last Plinkett review on why Crystal Skull was awful spoke about many of the things the mention with Into Darkness. I'm just interested to see if anyone can tell me why RLM are wrong and actually Into Darkness is worth $20 to see. MrBims posted:I agree with RLM (well, Mike) usually, and STID isn't an exception. But I still like the film and can defend why I like it. Is that supposed to not be possible? Yeah, go for it. I'm listening.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
PlantRobot posted:Presumably they were meant to be loaded onto the big fuckoff spaceship that could be flown by 'one, if necessary' and then he'd take it from there? But if his project was to make torpedoes, shouldn't he have been supervised? Maybe use a webcam or something to make sure he isn't sneaking marijuana or porn or frozen people into the torpedoes?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Yeah, go for it. I'm listening. Because it appealed to everything I was looking for in a ST09 successor and had a pace that kept me occupied and guessing. The story can't hold up to scrutiny, but the interactions of the characters drove the narrative forward where the story could not, with an engaging setting made through top notch video and audio work that was enhanced by the performances of the actors I was interested in (Greenwood, Pine, Quinto, Urban, Pegg, Cumberpatch). Is that sufficient, or do I have to spend hours of taping and editing together a video to refute another video in order to make my point that liking it is legitimate and not some attempt at trolling?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:What is your take on the review I've linked? You haven't written anything substantiative.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:But if his project was to make torpedoes, shouldn't he have been supervised? Maybe use a webcam or something to make sure he isn't sneaking marijuana or porn or frozen people into the torpedoes? Maybe there was a camera. Maybe your stereotypical donut-eating security guard went whaaaa??! pressed a button and voila, movie.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Because it appealed to everything I was looking for in a ST09 successor and had a pace that kept me occupied and guessing. The story can't hold up to scrutiny, but the interactions of the characters drove the narrative forward where the story could not, with an engaging setting made through top notch video and audio work that was enhanced by the performances of the actors I was interested in (Greenwood, Pine, Quinto, Urban, Pegg, Cumberpatch). Ok, but none of that applies to me. I thought the pace was silly and prevented anything actually interesting happening. I don't care about the visual and audio work, all blockbusters have this now. Crystal Skull and Prometheus had excellent audio and visual work, I still think they were poor films. I don't need the best CG to be engaged, indeed super-duper modern CG is often a warning flag that there may be little other substance in a modern film. I thought the interactions of the 'comic book characters' (as RLM puts it) were simple and boring, Spock blurts out about something being illogical, Kirk just yells at everyone, what does McCoy even do besides spout dumb metaphors? As said in the RLM review, why even bother with ranks in Starfleet? Obviously the mark of a true leader and hero is someone that ignores all authority and take matters into his own hands when he sees fit. This was a major part of the plot of Search for Spock, Kirk going against Starfleet and the ramifications were huge. The problem when you have such flimsy rules and ideas behind your film is that when you once again hand-wave them away to facilitate then next tit-shot, is it gets really boring because we're obviously just in magical plot land and anything goes. But yeah, obviously linking a well respected source with valid critism nicely packaged for your consumption isn't what you're looking for. Go and watch the RLM review, I really don't see how I could say it any better than they already have. Tony Montana fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:He's weilding an anti-aircraft cannon one-handed, and not even bothering with cover because he doesn't give a gently caress. But what does the anti-aircraft cannon represent?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Lots of us are with you, don't worry. Don't worry about the venom some of these guys are spitting, you'll see it's a consistent theme in the thread For what it's worth, the fact that you literally linked a breitbart.com review tells us more about you than anything you've linked tells us about the movie. The fact that you're demonstrating a complete lack of ability to synthesize your own argument and instead have chosen an elaborate and lengthy form of argumentum ad auctoritatem also says a lot. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 03:40 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Go and watch the RLM review, I really don't see how I could say it any better than they already have. Why? I liked the movie? Why am I going to go out of my way to have someone convince me I don't?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Why? I liked the movie? Why am I going to go out of my way to have someone convince me I don't? Because a well informed opinion is one with influences from all sources, not just the sources you agree with.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
api call girl posted:For what it's worth, the fact that you literally linked a breitbart.com review tells us more about you than anything you've linked tells us about the movie. Because argumentum ad hominem is so much better 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Go and watch the RLM review, I really don't see how I could say it any better than they already have. You quoted me saying that I agree with Mike, yet I still like the movie. You don't agree with my reasons for that, ok, but why go back to that review instead of just conceding that a movie can appeal or not appeal to different people based on their tastes and priorities?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Because a well informed opinion is one with influences from all sources, not just the sources you agree with. Because everyone who hasn't watched a lengthy video on the subject can't fully understand the shortcomings of a summer blockbuster? Literally everybody knows this is a dumb movie. The only difference is between those who can relate to it on those terms and those who can't.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Because a well informed opinion is one with influences from all sources, not just the sources you agree with. This is why you're not engaging with people you disagree with but are pimping a source you agree with.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:But what does the anti-aircraft cannon represent? A phallus, duh!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A phallus, duh! Actually, given Starfleet's whole modus operandi - coming in from the stars - I think the fact that he's wielding an anti-aircraft cannon is particularly symbolic. The whiteness of Khan gives us the symbolic corruption that violent resistance to imperialism can foster - it turns the colonized into the colonizer across decades of mythologizing and reinterpretation.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 04:09
|
|
