|
Just saw this. I'm a casual Trek watcher who hates every crew post-Original Series and I saw it with my sister, who had never seen any Star Trek. We both really enjoyed it. Did anyone else notice that the Admiral's plan was the same as the plot to Demolition Man? I also wish there was more exploration and trekking and less terrorism.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:04 |
|
bobkatt013 posted:This movie needed more 15 minute scenes of them just showing the Enterprise from every angle. It also needed more close up shots of Benedict Cumberbatch's cheekbones.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Did anyone else find the opening scene a bit problematic, with its unironic primitive natives?
|
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 14:31
|
|
LLJKSiLk posted:Tell it to Pakistan & Usama Bin Laden. Why do you hate freedom? I'm impressed at how blatant the political message was. All the supporting characters straight up tell Kirk, with no hesitation, "Drones bad. Due process good. and he accepts it in the next scene.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Was John Harrison named after great British Sci-Fi author M John Harrison?
|
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 04:00
|
|
Outlaw Vern reviews it, had the same reaction I didquote:Party’s over, though. Trekkos want their poo poo back. I’ve heard complaints from fans about the new ones not being truly in the spirit of the old movies and syndicated tv series. I mean it seems weird to be mad at the filmatists for having fun things happen instead of just people having long conversations in one room while looking at a screen with a picture of space and then walking down a hallway and then going back to the first room, but I do think they’re probly semi-legitimate grievances. STAR TREK did carve out its own niche where it’s different from the other shows, and is about explorers and talking and philosophy or whatever. So maybe some of the new movies shouldn’t be about fighting an evil warlord. And if you guys all agree you want to go back to the approach they had for the previous 20 years then I’m fine going back to only watching one every six or seven years and then saying “Yeah, that was fine I guess. James Cromwell is always good.” Overthinking It also just did a long podcast on the movie.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
Is there a Trekkies.txt? Because people on Metafilter and i09 are SO ANGRY that this movie isn't 100% airtight and logically consistent. Kirk was a horny hothead, Spock was logical, Bones was a doctor and not a mechanical engineer. There were Tribbles. It was an enjoyable movie for both me, who had seen WoK and Old Trek, and my sister, who hasn't but enjoyed the slashy bits. Very few people care if the warp core is properly calibrated. Geek movies get subjected to this stupid level of scrutiny where they don't just need to make internal sense but they also need to confirm to 50 years of often contradictory continuity or they're the WORST THING EVER. And this goes double for people nitpicking Iron Man 3.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 23:48
|
|
Mr_Ruckus posted:I don't think Khan's super healing blood has the long ranging implications some of you think it would. After all, I don't think they would ever be able to mass produce it. 1) I don't see the majority of Starfleet, or even the Federation as a whole, being okay with essentially keeping people around (probably imprisoned, or almost worse - just in a medical coma in some tube or something or in cryo) to harvest blood from for medicine. Not exactly the moral high road Starfleet would like to say they take. 2) it's very likely that genetic engineering is illegal in this era (since, if Khan and his men exist, some form of the eugenics wars probably happened. Or at the least, there's a reason genetic engineering supermen are rare and not the norm). So it's not like they would just up and make more dudes for more blood or have a large pool of volunteers, if they even considered it moral and it was legal. So even if it cures death from a week away or any cause, I don't see it as being able to be mass produced or readily available, anyway. In the movie, it's just a last ditch effort that McCoy uses in the heat of the moment. I don't think it ressurected Kirk so much as it cured the radiation poison, allow his body to take over from there - they made a point of preserving his brain functions using cryo-stasis. This is an indictment of how short-sighted the Federation is and how stupid any prohibition against genetic engineering is. Khan and his men should be the future of the Federation, their post-human goal, not the enemy. Spoilers: http://www.theawl.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-an-important-afterword
|
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
A Hispanic Kirk? That will bust stereotypes. Who's ever heard of an impulsive, hot-headed, constantly horny Spaniard? But seriously whitewashing is horrible. I'm Italian/Spanish/French, and I barely see anyone who looks like me on screen. And I code as 'white' in most places. They should have mixed up everyone's races. It was a bit odd how they had to make them the same as the TOS cast. Count Chocula fucked around with this message at 04:25 on May 26, 2013 |
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 04:21
|
|
MrBims posted:Yes it's a bit odd they had to make them look the same as the TOS cast when they literally are supposed to be the TOS cast but younger. A bit odd... http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-5-most-insulting-defenses-nerd-racism/ It is, because the race/appearance of the character often doesn't matter. Especially when white is seen as 'the default'.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 04:37
|
|
MrBims posted:Race and appearance does matter when we're talking about characters in sequels and prequels, etc. You don't cast Kirk as white in one movie and then black in the next, just as an author won't write a character as white in one book and black in the next. Don't give me a Cracked link, give me an actual argument. They did that in the first four Batman movies. Harvey Dent was black in Batman Returns and white in Batman Forever (when he got a larger role). And 'canon' (which is bullshit nitpickery aside), more than 40 years have passed between TOS and the new movies. They exist in utterly different contexts. What was progressive then might not be so now. Why not a black Spock? Why do we still have Chekov's joke-accent?
|
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 04:46
|
|
jivjov posted:When casting for a movie, which ostensibly has the purpose "to entertain", does "quality-of-performance" enter the equation at all? Doesn't systematic injustice mean its more likely they'll be more white actors auditioning or being put in the top choices?
|
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 04:48
|
|
Phylodox posted:According to what we learn in Space Seed he was a basically benign dictator, the least violent and most successful of his era. Pretty much everyone in that episode expresses sympathy and admiration for Khan at one point or another. Why doesn't the Federation use genetic engineering to uplift itself? For a its Sci-Fi trappings post-TOS Trek seems so reactionary and bland and beige. They don't act like beings who have replicators and holodecks.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
There's a Skeptoid podcast from 2010 where Brian Dunning imagines the TOS crew causing the formation of a cargo cult around them. I wonder of one of the writers for the movie heard it.
|
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 09:09
|
|