|
Just saw this movie. Not bad. Loved the Harry Mudd shout-out.
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
You know, I've been thinking about this movie and its predecessor a lot lately. They are big, flashy, aggressively stupid movies, but I still like them and I've been trying to figure out why. At this point, I have a kind of working hypothesis. I think it's because previous to these movies, Star Trek had just forgotten how to have fun. I watch the original series and Next Generation back-to-back on television, and it's amazing to me how different the atmosphere is in the two shows. It just seems to me like everyone in The Next Generation is so buttoned-down and professional and stick-up-their-rear end boring. Seriously, you have a room that can re-create absolutely any scenario you can imagine and your guilty pleasure is re-enacting Raymond Chandler-esque detective novels? Everyone is so stiff and formal and tepid. Not that it wasn't a smart, interesting show...but it just lacked a lot of the adventure and camaraderie of the original series. I love the new movies (and the original series) because Kirk and crew are charming and fun and alive in a way that Picard and his jazz-trombone playing crew weren't. The same goes for Janeway and what's-his-name in Enterprise, only those shows didn't even have smart going for them. Deep Space Nine was a bit better, but mostly because of the non-Federation characters. I like that Kirk is a brash smart-rear end who banters with his crew. I like that there's sex and loud music and the universe doesn't feel so dry and clinical and academic. Yes, they're stupid movies, but I don't think that makes them bad movies.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:And pretty much every character on DS9 had a sense of fun and moments of looseness On paper, Sisko is dishwater. All of the greatness of his character comes from Avery Brooks being legit crazy in real life. And Voyager had potential that they immediately flushed down the toilet. There was a gold mine of dramatic potential having two antagonistic crews thrown together in a dangerous, resource-poor situation. The writers then fell all over themselves to have the terrorists almost seamlessly integrated into the Starfleet crew as soon as possible and have the show be as close to Trek status quo as they could make it.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Voyager went to some weird places, yeah...but they weren't fun weird places. The characters were the same kind of bland, milquetoast nobodies Star Trek came to specialize in. Even Tom Paris, the dangerous bad boy Kirk-wannabe...wasn't his big holodeck escapism thing re-living lovely 1930s serials? It made for a weird as gently caress episode, but it just reinforced how repressed everyone was. Can you imagine what reboot Kirk would do with a magic room that could create whatever you wanted? Hell, even in the original series when they landed on that planet where whatever you thought of came true, what did McCoy dream up? Two semi-nude showgirls! Picard would have thought himself up a particularly interesting archaeological dig site. Sisko would have thought up a baseball game. Janeway? I dunno, she probably would have imagined herself as a Dickensian governess or something equally dry.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
I'm okay with a show having nerdy characters...but that wasn't how Paris was presented to us in the context of the show. He was the hotshot pilot ex-con bad boy. Sadly (so, so, so sadly), the only characters who use the holodeck in a realistic fashion are Quark (portrayed in the show as a revolting pervert), Geordi (who falls in love with his holo-lady for God's sake), and loving Barclay (who has crippling social anxiety and even then has to couch his holo-gently caress-fantasies in weird, flowery literary scenarios). I don't know if it's the fault of the writers, Roddenberry, or the perceived fan base, but the show was just weirdly, hilariously uptight. Especially considering how swashbuckling, adventurous, and free-spirited the original series was.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
I liked The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine when the crews and characters were dealing with interesting plots and such...they were great shows, all considered. It was just when they delved into the crewmembers' personal lives that I wanted to fall asleep while punching my TV.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:You're calling it hilariously uptight, I'm calling it funny and campy. Are we still disagreeing here? I'd call the original series campy. I'm really not sure what I'd call the later series. I didn't mean it was hilarious in itself...more that it was hilarious that the writers had no trouble delving into matters of morality and science and humanity while seemingly being incapable of writing characters who led realistic, interesting lives. And the holodeck was just a good example of what I'm talking about. Nobody in the later Star Trek series gave the impression of being able to let loose and have fun. I think that if the original series was like the old West in space, The Next Generation was like Victorian era England in space. Except maybe for, like, Quark and Dax.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
What I wanted to know was why they needed Khan alive at all. They had 72 other genetically enhanced supermen whose blood they could have used. I thought that was where they were going when McCoy was all, "Get this man out of his cryo-tube...so I can put Kirk in it to preserve him until we get Khan's blood!" EDIT: VV I don't think Marcus knew Khan's crew were in the torpedoes. Khan's plan was to arm the Vengeance with those torpedoes, then free his crew and use them to hijack the ship. VV Phylodox fucked around with this message at 23:16 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:It did have a risk of having a finale where they get to earth and then does not show what happens next. We know what happened next thanks to Nemesis. They gave Janeway command of a desk and politely asked her not to lose it.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Yeah, Vulcan has a thinner atmosphere and higher gravity. Also, everywhere is an active volcano. Stands to reason vulcans are stronger than your factory-standard human.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
It's just not Star Trek without the blatantly visible stunt guy stand-ins.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
I'm a sucker for both film soundtracks and consistency. So while I liked Giacchino's soundtracks to the new Trek films, the consistency nut in me would love some more musical callbacks. Goldsmith's theme and Klingon motif from The Motion Picture especially.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Well, presumably Carol came up with Genesis independent of Khan's super-blood in the alpha timeline, so I doubt there's any kind of relationship there.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Khan's blood cures radiation poisoning. Obviously it doesn't cure crazy.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
I always thought Khan was his title, anyways. Like Dr. Noonien Singh.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Third movie, mirror universe, that is all.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:I want them to do a big budget remake of the episode where scotty is xharged with murdering a hooker and the real killer is an energy cloud that used to be jack the ripper. I can't go with this on account of Piglet died in 2005.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Well, being sucked into a black hole sends you back in time, right? Knowing that, what happened to the Narada at the end of Star Trek? No telling how far back its wreckage was sent or what impact it might have had on whatever timelines.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The what? It's a reference to Team America. I hate that I know this. Phylodox fucked around with this message at 00:47 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
It's great that you don't think it's a problem. That doesn't change the fact that it is. It's bad enough that there are precious few strong, leading roles for non-Caucasian actors, but when you start taking the few roles that are and giving them to white people...yeah, I don't care if you are the director, that's a problem. Just look at The Last Airbender. Shameful.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then again, you have people saying "I wanted Khan to be hispanic because Khan has always been hispanic" without a trace of irony. Yeah, that's problematic, too. For 1967 it was really progressive to have an Indian character who was strong and commanding. It was progressive to have cast a lead role as non-white (albeit Mexican rather than Indian). Keep in mind, this was less than a decade after Mickey Rooney played a horrible, horrible Asian stereotype in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Now, it seems, we're moving back towards Mr. Yunioshi rather than in the proper, more diverse and inclusive direction. At least they kept Khan as a strong character. I shouldn't have to say, "Well, yeah, but at least they didn't make Khan a subservient, bumbling Apu knock-off, am I right?"
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Casting a Puerto Rican instead of a Mexican to play an Indian...would not have been a step forward by any means. That said, at least it wouldn't have been a step back. As it stands, Star Trek Into Darkness having Khan played by possibly the whitest guy I've ever seen in my life means that we're now somehow less progressive now than we were back in 1967. And having the character not be Khan is bad, too. Re-writing your movies to not include different ethnicities so you don't have to cast non-white people is horrible, too. And saying, "Well, having a brown person crash a starship into a major city is just perpetuating stereotypes that all brown people are terrorists" is bad, too. Rather than using the script as an excuse not to cast an Indian actor, change the script. Instead of having Khan spitefully crashing the Vengeance into Starfleet headquarters, have the ship already heading there while Khan desperately tries to stop it, thus inverting expectations and making him a noble, if flawed, villain. You can still have him fail to avert the disaster and get your big crash scene, after all.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Riso posted:And that is all thanks to the lovely writing presented to us in this movie. Seriously. Stop using lazy writing as an excuse. Until Into Darkness Khan was never presented as a terrorist. He was a monarch. A despot. A great military leader and tactician. Nothing in the movie necessitates that Khan be a mad bomber type terrorist. The basic themes and metaphors aren't dependent on it. The only reason it's needed is to make your 9/11 metaphor completely obvious.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You mean except the events of Wrath of Khan where he's planning on using a missile in a last-ditch effort to destroy the Enterprise? Not sure what your point there is. He wants to kill Kirk, yeah. By that point it's just a personal vendetta, though. Does that make him a terrorist? No Wave posted:If you are saying that the primary concern of a film today should be to cast minorities whenever possible, make that argument, and then praise movies that do so even if they are not critically praised. What a weird argument to make. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. It's not a zero sum equation, here. This argument is like saying, "Racism? gently caress you, there are people dying in Afghanistan, stop wasting time on this bullshit and deal with real problems!!!" The topic is relevant to this film, regardless of the quality of the film itself, because it's a very visible, obvious example of a character being whitewashed. Very, extremely, egregiously whitewashed. Not sure what your problem with me pointing that out is, really. Phylodox fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He doesn't strictly want to kill Kirk, he wants to kill everyone aboard the Enterprise. He wants to kill everyone on the Enterprise to get to Kirk. We're not really shown that he has any interest in the Enterprise or its crew. Once Kirk is stranded, Khan doesn't set his sights on the Enterprise. He just wants to defeat (not even necessarily kill) the guy he perceives as being responsible for the death of his "wife". That accomplished, his next goal seems to be to use the Genesis device as leverage to rule the known galaxy.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So the equivalent of a A strategy that isn't exclusive to terrorists. It's...basically the entirety of the Cold War.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, because Khan is explicitly not a superpower. He's one ship. I would argue that it's intent and method, not size of the perpetrator, that decides whether it's terrorism or not. Still, the definition of "terrorism" is vague enough that any act of violence (or intimidation) used to achieve political goals could be defined as such. That's why I specified that Khan wasn't basically a mad bomber. He doesn't want to rack up a body count to make some sort of political point. He wants to rule, and from what we're told in Space Seed, his rule is a benevolent one, as despotic dictators go. All of which is to say...if you're worried that your audience will see any act of violence committed by a person with brown skin as terrorism...well, that's a huge loving problem. One that's exacerbated by the media and entertainment industry overwhelmingly portraying those people within the context of terrorism. That's part of not casting people of different ethnicities in different roles; they tend to get pigeon-holed into a certain type...then not cast at all, because casting them as that "type" is "insensitive". EDIT: VV Nobody is saying that Khan isn't a brutal (when necessary), calculating, amoral power monger. The point of this whole discussion (which I think has gotten a bit lost) is whether or not a person with brown skin can portray a villain in today's media without being perceived as a terrorist or a terrorist analogue. VV EDIT2: I mean...come on, tell me this guy couldn't have played Khan: 
Phylodox fucked around with this message at 17:35 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That being said, your insistence to "change the plot" because a non-white person is an antagonist seems to say that they can't in your opinion. What I said was that if you are worried that your explicit references to 9/11 coupled with your Indian villain...then you change the script. Because, as I said before, people with brown skin are too often associated with acts of terror. Having your Indian villain explicitly linked to your analogue for the acts of terrorism on September 11th...yeah, that is problematic. I also said that it's easily inverted by having Khan try to stop the catastrophy, which removes absolutely nothing from your script and actually adds a bit of depth to your villain.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:What's the point of using Hrithik if they're not going to give him a dance number? Turn the Khan/Spock confrontation at the end into a dance fight!
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Yeah. Did you see that picture of Hrithik Roshan I posted above? How's that for physically threatening? That motherfucker will crush your skull, I don't care if you are Robocop!!! He's even got an extra thumb to do it with.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And as said before, a lot of people are moaning that Khan is specifically not hispanic, not non-Indian. So? As I said before, it wouldn't be an improvement over Ricardo Montalban, but it would definitely be an improvement over Benedict Cumberbatch. Personally, I think we should be trying to make progress, not just settle for the status quo, but in this case even the status quo was better than we got.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I keep seeing "he's textually Indian!!!!" thrown about. Could someone remind me where this is stated in Into Darkness? Parallel timeline be damned, they've already proven that not everything is as it was in the Trek canon with these new films, and I don't recall it ever being definitively established that Khan in this film is definitively of Indian origin. Khan predates the altered timeline. Also, not seeing how altered timelines would change a person's ethnicity.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Why would you even? Why would anyone twist themselves into pedantic knots trying to justify not simply casting an Indian actor (of which there are a ton) as an Indian character? Why is anybody even arguing this point at all?!?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I say this with the most sincerity that I can project via the internet, I honestly think you (and others) are getting far too worked up. Well, with all due respect and no offense intended...I really don't think it's your (or anyone's) place to say how important things should and shouldn't be taken. Yeah, the casting of a nerd movie in and of itself isn't a big deal, but it's symptomatic of a much larger, more pervasive problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm not saying the issue itself is or isn't important. Its the tone a lot of posts have been taking that makes me think people are becoming far too personally (and not intellectually) invested in the discussion. Okay...? This is something people are right to get emotionally invested in. People should be pissed about this. It's not just a big problem, it's a stupid problem. For whatever reason Hollywood has internalized the notion that viewing audiences can't handle ethnic diversity in their leading roles. People of colour aren't cast without a reason (usually fulfilling some stereotype). That's insulting to most people's intelligence. For the rest, like Mr. "Dots, Not Feathers" from this thread? gently caress 'em. EDIT: In response to the post above mine: nobody thinks there's a willful, conscious conspiracy in Hollywood. The truth is much worse and more insidious. We, as a society, have internalized the idea of Caucasian as the "default". If someone who isn't white is cast for a role, there usually has to be some thematic or textual justification for it. Obviously the reverse does not apply. Phylodox fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Considering the history of the British involvement in India, having a guy with an Indian name be a white British man doesn't seem like a stretch. The opposite is more likely. My wife's family has a Nigel, a Wesley, and a Shelby.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I can't even engage in this "whitewashing" argument as Montalbán was white, or of European decent, as far as I can tell. Guy was Mexican.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
All of which is irrelevant, anyways. Khan was Indian. Space Seed established that. Cast an Indian to play him. Period.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:But there isn't a "sucks Khan is white" consensus. Instead, there's absurd nacelle-counting contortion and other attempts to explain that not only does the narrative either allow or require him to be white, the narrative itself can't even justifiably be criticized for being arranged such that Khan is white. Just the responses to my previous post are evidence of this.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 03:39
|
|