|
Except the fact that the guy remembered that and used it over THREE YEARS LATER is one of the dumbest things in that movie.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
ok, more accurately, its dumb writing. That guys entire existence in the film is just to deliver that dumb joke. The setup and payoff are like, an hour apart. They might as well have called him CADET PUNCHLINE in the credits.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
How can you have a Khan character without genetic engineering? Have they mentioned this at all?? It's an interesting thing. Here's a superior version of the human race that is kept down and outlawed by all the dummies because the dummies know that they will take over....
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
I am not sure a bizarro supernatural godlike character is the right way to go with star trek at this point. Then again, I didn't think the first movie was really good either, sooo...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
CPFortest posted:I'm pretty sure there were at least twenty bizarre supernatural godlike characters in just the original series. To say nothing of TNG or DS9. Yeaaaah, and a lot of them were terrible. And none of them made it into film. I don't know, I understand the precedent in the series, but I have a hard time seeing it working in this. Could be wrong, probably am.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Between this trailer and watching the behind the scenes features on the TNG BluRays, the problem with this poo poo is pretty obvious: There Are No Longer Enough Nerds Working In Star Trek. Wait... so this big spaceship can just chill out underwater and that's all okay? Because both environments aren't breathable, I guess it makes no difference! There are just so many things in the first movie, and it looks to be in this one that would get the immediate veto from some stereotypical nerd producer or staff member. Couple that with the fact that people are no longer trying to tell classic vein science fiction stories and you end up with a poorly thought out, poorly plotted, viciously unscientific generic action movie with a thin veneer of something vaguely "star trek-y" Gary Mitchell wasn't about PEW PEW MIND BULLETS, ACTION, EXPLOSIONS. The original writer didn't even want him to get into a physical confrontation with Kirk because that sort of thing is beneath him. I seriously doubt we're going to get any kind of worthy morality tale about absolute power or humanity here. Remember, when Gene was talking to Patrick Stewart about what Star Trek "was" he told him to read Horatio Hornblower. When he talked to writers, he told them to write that story that they had always wanted to tell but never has been given the opportunity to. He didn't tell Stewart to read Flash Gordon, and while he might have "actioned-up" some scripts for TV, there was a very real core of classic sci fi storytelling there. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Drone posted:Yeah, the dude I was quoting was specifically calling out JJTrek 1 and 2 for being "Earth in Danger" movies. I was responding to that. His point is still valid, even when compared to older movies vs. this new poo poo: Star Trek - The Motion Picture: eh, sure the Earth is maybe in danger, but there was a much larger aspect of exploring the unknown. Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan: Khan never expressed any sort of hatred toward the Federation, only Kirk. Star Trek - The Voyage Home: A weak antagonist, to be sure, but at least it was in service to the larger point the whole thing was trying to make. Star Trek - The Final Frontier: Saibok was not a galactic threat. Star Trek - First Contact: Probably the most directly SAVE THE EARTH movie. Star Trek - Nemesis: gently caress this movie. So through MOST of those anyway, the threat is something strange or fantastic and alien. Hell, most of the time, the threat isn't even specifically aggressive, it's merely acting out its nature. JJTrek? The threat is... a man... with a laser space drill. But he's REALLY pissed off. This new villain, as cool as Cumberbatch might be, doesn't appear to be a deep improvement. There's no POINT to these villains other than their inherent villainy and their very personal motivations. No greater story to tell at all. Lobok posted:I don't suppose the ship's shields would protect against water and/or pressure? Even though there are a few plot convenient contradictions, shields don't work that way and specifically rely on being able to focus their resistance on a smaller spot rather than the entire area, if I remember right.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Because the franchise was over and they weren't doing anything with it. Voyager gut shot it, and it's been dead since Enterprise. Holodeck episodes are not INHERENTLY flawed, Fist Full Of Datas aside. And I guess we can just dismiss Heinlein as a hack too, since he sometimes wrote about FUCKIN'
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's been a general consensus here for a while. Wait, what are you serious?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:He had many hackish qualities. He did some good work too, but a lot of great Star Trek came from telling his ideas about the setting to go screw. Basically the entirety of DS9 is a long "With all due respect, gently caress that noise" to everything that came before. Star Trek isn't any one thing, and it certainly doesn't owe it's history to any one man. Not even Gene. OK, that's pretty fair. My point was more that they've really just abandoned any sort of HUMAN CONDITION STORYTELLING for flair and flash, and Gene was *mostly* all about that sort of thing, which sometimes worked and sometimes needed more spacebabes and nonsense. WarLocke posted:Heinlein wasn't perfect? Why I never. Yeah, I mean you go digging around any long time scifi author, ain't many of them stand up bastions of sanity and sound judgment and opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
I don't think you can at all compare the complexity and thematic elements present in Wrath of Khan to "oh you see what spock did, oh he mad." And yeah, Cumberbatch will make this watchable regardless of any other details.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
I don't understand how we're supposed to believe for a second that Cumberbatch is some sort of genetic superman when his head is shaped like a giant tater 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Well, how about we can all agree that one thing this sequel needs more of is Karl Urban's McCoy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
So am I an alpha-grade sperglord if the idea of the Enterprise being able to chill underwater like it's no big deal bothers the fuckin PISS out of me?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:In TOS the Enterprise survived nuclear explosions. So I don't think water pressure would be an insurmountable obstacle for their engineering skills. What's a nuclear explosion in space? There's not enough gas for a blast wave, so you basically just end up with a giant burst of radiation. sean10mm posted:The deflectors survive weapon hits measured in megatons. Meanwhile we've been building subs with our lovely technology for over a century. Dispersing energy is not the same as withstanding thousands of pounds per square inch of sustained pressure. LitigiousChimp posted:It's a ship that can handle the stress of accelerating to FTL speeds without falling apart, why do you think a little water pressure would be too much for it? The ship never actually experiences the acceleration and deceleration effects directly. mind the walrus posted:Sperg Answer: The Deflector Array basically makes the Enterprise shielded in a bubble, so the answer to your question is "water pressure shouldn't be an issue at all, provided the Deflector Array is still working." The deflector array is only really effective against small points of incursion, some dumbass episodes excepted. Some Other Guy posted:I've rolled my eyes a couple of times at this whole mystery villain thing. It is the type of thing that I'd expect the hacks behind "Lost" to come up with. What's next, a teaser clip where there's a polar bear on the bridge? hacks behind "Lost" Yes, and at their hacky hackiest, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
AICN says: In "Space Seed," Harrison was nearly suffocated to death on the Enterprise bridge by unfrozen superman Khan Noonien Singh.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
I really, rrreeeeaaaalllly hope they aren't doing the whole overplayed HE GOT CAUGHT AND PUT IN THE BRIG ON PURPOSE deal with that shot
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
I'd also still say that one of the massive, massive failings of the first film is that Bruce Greenwood is about 16,434,922 times more charismatic and CAPTAIN-Y than new-Kirk ever seemed to be. I'd be a lot more excited to see side-series movies with him and a different crew doing things in space.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
treeboy posted:I'm actually hoping we see a maturation of Kirk in this movie (hopefully he starts it off a little more wizened) and he's not just running from set to set stammering like he's a reject from Transformers. I was fine with it in the first movie since he was sorta out of the chain of command as a pseudo-stowaway until Pike threw him in as 1st officer. I just can't see Pine pulling this off and ever seeming like someone with some legitimate gravity and authority. In fact, I'd say if the casting were better and we actually believed for even a second that he were, a lot of these complaints about these movies would be minimized. edit: In retrospect, I can't remember a single CHARACTER moment from any of the leads in the entire movie(which confessedly, I've only seen twice.) I can't think of any real interesting traits or moments that weren't just silly poo poo like I DRIVE CARS OFF CLIFFS BECAUSE I AM A REBEL or the verbal middle finger to the science council, both of which were kinda terrible scenes in context. Meanwhile, I remember Pike's character pretty vividly and even GEORGE Kirk made more of an impression on me than his doofus son.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Film is made up almost entirely of visual metaphors. It's not as if it's a real spaceship that someone just happened to capture on film. What ideals does the Enterprise represent? With just a trailer it's difficult to know what the water here is, but there's tons of things it could be. Assuming you're not just joking, please don't start this awful poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
From a visual standpoint, something about V really looks a lot more legitimate and cinematic than it actually is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:If you didn't like Insurrection, you really should watch the version with the full commentary by Frakes and Sirtis. It is hilarious, revealing, informative, and also really, really sweet because Frakes knows the name of almost every supporting actor in every scene, and has nothing but nice stuff to say about them and the crew. Yep, Frakes seems so astonishingly down to earth and grateful for everyone involved. Everyone should watch this shitpile again with this commentary.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I think that's the first time I've seen anyone say anything bad about Quinto's take on Spock. And I was one of the biggest naysayers when I heard he'd been cast. "loving Sylar is going to be Spock? gently caress that noise." I don't really dig new-Spock either. The science council scene makes my eyes roll really hard every time, especially the way the camera's just like EHHHH IM GONNA BE SIIIIDEWAYS for no good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Yeah man screw any movie that wants to explore interesting cinematic camera angles. Would you prefer the whole movie was shot in boring rear end shot reverse shot? It's a goofy shot that doesn't contribute at all to the storytelling of the scene. It's completely distracting and you can just see dumbass JJ Abrams holding his hands up and making WHOOOOSH noises while he explains it. It's terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Yeah, Oblivion is playing it really smart by not falling into the same uncreative visual trap that this movie is apparently wallowing in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Polo-Rican posted:Here's one big, quantifiable way color grading can potentially hurt a film: it drastically diminishes the viewer's sense of setting. Typically, each setting has a distinct color scheme - using Star Wars as an example, Tattoine has intense desert colors, yoda's swamp planet is muddy browns and greens, the planet with the speeder bike chase is bright greens and browns, and the cloud city Bespin is a bright array of pinks and friendly colors. It's really easy to conjure up an image of these settings in your memory, largely because each one has a distinct color tone. Even interiors differ in tone: The interior of the millenium falcon is warmly lit greys that appear gold, whereas the interior of the death star is a cold, monotone cyan (comically, colors reserved for villainous places in old sci fi films are applied to almost all interiors in modern sci fi films) Maybe it's secretly going to have a Mirror's Edge crossover.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:This was the concept art for engineering in JJTrek if they had had a budget: I agree with this quite a bit. That whole cavernous room being somehow the "engine room" was a giant WTF? DrNutt posted:I read some blogger's wishlist for a TNG reboot, and now I really want to see Christopher Eccleston as Picard. Dear Paramount: hire this man. AlternateAccount fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Okay so having seen the 9 minute trailer, here is my guess on one of the angles they're going to take for the ending Hi, you might be interested in STAR TREK 2: THE WRATH OF KHAN.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
There's a rather spoilery article up on AICN where Cumberbatch discusses his character with some more vague details... http://www.aintitcool.com/node/60161
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
As long as neither Abrams himself or his talentless toadie Lindelhof are allowed anywhere near the writing process, maybe there's a chance for goodness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Ugh, every time I see Chris Pine on screen all I can think of is how much I'd rather see Bruce Greenwood's character headlining this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:BEEP Haha, well done. I mean you're Captain Pike, sure you got injured but why didn't he ever go, "Nice job, freshly graduated Ensign Kirk. I am sure you'll have a bright future ahead of you someday, you've validated my confidence in you. I'd like my ship back now, please, report to the onboard brewery for duty."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The first scene looks as if you can touch the bridge. Is it lighting? I think maybe the later movies suffer more from 'movie lighting' and less trying to replicate the look of something functional. I think you've hit on something though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Then Kirk and Khan can TEAM UP. It's so silly I almost like it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:The shot all of their warp cores into a black hole, all they need is some "future technology scavenged from the depths of who the gently caress cares blah" and boom, brand new ship gets a brand new engine room with shiny new generation warp cores because why the gently caress not. I would rather they stick with the whole industrial idea for it though, engine rooms in star trek have always been boring vestibules with a glowy tube in them, the engine room should be much more kinetic. This is a pretty good idea, I think. I'd like to see something that looks less like a concept drawing and more like something incomprehensibly technical. I mean the motor in an average lawnmower apparently has more parts and is more complicated than a warp drive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wouldn't say it's a bad script, even though I think at times it was way too blunt, or just silly (CGI alien sidekick ... "Kirk = troubled youth" car chase ... I don't need these in my action/adventure films even), but, similar to TMP, I'd say the pictures clearly outshine the script. The script is OKAY, but the visuals are GREAT. It's a bad script. It's maybe a passible "generic action movie" story, but it really completely fails to have any sort of depth that you'd expect from science fiction, or at least I expect it personally. Each of the TOS movies(maybe excepting IV) had a lot more going on as subtext(even if people argue about the subtlety) and fantastic character arcs at times. 2009 had none of that whatsoever unless maybe you want to count that hamfisted Spock nonsense. No worthwhile character arcs, no Big Questions, etc. It's carrying zero depth, it's just bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Can you give an example of these character arcs, Big Questions and depth from the old movies (preferably not the series) that you find JJTrek is missing? I think NarkyBark covered it pretty well. And to your later question, definitely yes. For me, it's the entire reason for scifi to exist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's far more plausible for an engine room to look almost-exactly like a brewery than for an alien creature to look almost-exactly like a human being. Blammo! There is an in universe explanation for this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I think they allow only one dude to get sucked. Why don't they have standby transporters monitoring so that if anyone gets spaced they cant get autobeamed back somewhere safe?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:So, returning to the upcoming movie. This gives a whole new context to Mudd's women... 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 21:27
|
|