|
My personal hope Khan willingly lets them use his blood to save Kirk and is not all bad person. Let's go all out with this different universe.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Because he's already been defined AS HUMAN+. Not as something foreign entirely. And there's nothing in the genome that says Hey, your blood cures death! Uhh, death from radiation? YES! Death from old age? SURE! Death from a giant space mantis shrimp punching you in the face? Yes yes yes! It's so patently absurd on any level and the chance that the writers of this mess have the chops to somehow make something good out of the concept is functionally zero. So, is Kirk all dead, or just mostly dead? On the one hand those spoilers seem somewhat silly. On the other it's all part of some guy's clear hatred of the blasphemous invocation of the sacred Wrath of Khan, peace be upon it. So I'm pretty comfortable in assuming that the surrounding scenario is probably a whole lot more reasonable in context and without the lens of unbridled hate at cinematic heresy. Hell, Next Generation did a whole episode about how magically bringing someone back to life can depend on what your definition of death is. Picard was getting spun up as a Sky God and everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Honestly, the more I think about the blood, the more I like it. It casts Khan as a sort of evil Jesus. He is a man who has come back from the dead, and his blood possesses the power of resurrection. From a series that has given us the "evil Lincoln" trope, evil Jesus is hysterically appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
I think we'll really have to see how it plays out to judge it. Magic blood isn't inherently less ridiculous than the katra conceit from II & III
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I think we'll really have to see how it plays out to judge it. Magic blood isn't inherently less ridiculous than the katra conceit from II & III You know what, yeah. Having Spock put his mind into McCoy and then be resurrected by being on a planet, aged to that one particular point, and then having his mind restored later on...it's nuts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
If a lot of the movie is Khan taking down Section 31, then I'm gonna have a hard time accepting him as a villain anyway. There was a need to step outside the Roddenberry box (and doing so made for better trek), but Section 31 is more like ordering an an airstrike on the box and selling the ashes to Halliburton. Hundreds of years operating behind the scenes pulling the real strings presents Roddenberry's better enlightened future as a pacifying lie so society gets to feel good while surrendering real control to the secret, elite lizard men (figurative lizard men... not Gorn). It's a notion that reshapes our enlightened heroes like Picard from role-models into chumps with silly ideological hangups preventing real influence. A Star Trek with Section 31 destroys the optimistic vision of a better world; it's just hope of a better constructed lie. It's a society that better asserts the illusion of progress while the big boys get their hands dirty, and academics pat each other on the back for a job well done. Burn the lie, Khan. BURN IT ALL! EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Or go in the opposite direction. Section 31 gains greater influence over Starfleet and the Federation. Things go dramatically differently in how they progress by the time TNG and Deep Space 9 happen with regards to the Borg and Dominion. gently caress, I wish we could get a full scale $200 million dollar Dominion War movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Gatts posted:You know what, yeah. Having Spock put his mind into McCoy and then be resurrected by being on a planet, aged to that one particular point, and then having his mind restored later on...it's nuts. That's the wonderful thing about Star Trek. Pretty much 80 percent of the plots look ridiculous on paper. It's the execution that matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Not being a serious "hardcore" Trekkie or anything, and only going by what's been posted in this thread and that linked imdb spoiler review, let me try to piece together some coherent ramblings on the Star Trek reboot: As EvilTobaccoExec says, there was a conscious decision to step away from the accepted Roddenberry view of the Star Trek utopian future. In TOS and much of TNG there's that sense of there's always something new, wonderful, and magical right around the next corner. The ship and its crew would encounter some fantastical new race in next week's episode, Q would do something wacky, the holodeck would do or show us something totally off the chain. In DS9 and on, the universe is darker, more gray, more drab. We have established factions, internecine warfare, long-running plot threads. In Dune series terms, the future has been fixed by the prophetic eye. There is no more discovery, there is no more mystery, there is only death (of the franchise). This problem becomes worse with Voyager and then Enterprise itself being a prequel (sort of the same problem you see with the Star Wars prequels--we know where we're going AND the PT manages to be a joyless mess much of the time). ST09 upends that while still aping the trends of the modern derelict Star Trek franchise. Take some of the most extremes--the plot of Nemesis, the overwroughtness of planetary destruction from DS9 and certain of the other movies, etc. One of Nero's prime characteristics as a villain is his slavish adherence to "canon": "I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen!" The end of ST09 is both a rejection and a celebration of canon--a rejection of the previous regime in the franchise, and a celebration of what Star Trek originally was. It even ends with the familiar opening monologue of Star Trek TV series (prior to DS9/VOY/etc). STID, then, goes further. Section 31 is a long-running cruel joke on the franchise, a creation of the times in which the series they appeared in to make Star Trek a more "mature" or "complicated" thing. STID exposes Section 31, makes it the primary antagonist instead of the expected Harrison/Khan, and then deals it a crushing defeat. At the end of the movie, STID brings us back to the beginning of the TOS Enterprise's 5-year mission, in a total rejection/repudiation of what's been done to the franchise in the name of grittiness and moral complexity as personified by Section 31. The ST reboot is rebooting the franchise in far more ways than just taking us back to the beginning of the relationship of the TOS Enterprise's command crew. It's doing something far more ambitious. I hope this is borne out in the future of the reboot movie franchise, and also going forward if TV shows are to be revived. e: jivjov might be familiar with the tack that I've taken with this as he and I have disagreed on the nature of the Star Wars EU franchise in the BB thread. I find much of the Star Wars EU distasteful in much the same way it appears some have found the previous Star Trek regime distasteful, viewed partially through the lens of what Frank Herbert has described in the Dune series (since at least Dune Messiah). e2: given that JJ Abrams will also helm the new Star Wars movies I'm seriously hoping that what he did to Star Trek is 100% intentional and will be reflected in what he does to Star Wars. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
api call girl posted:e: jivjov might be familiar with the tack that I've taken with this as he and I have disagreed on the nature of the Star Wars EU franchise in the BB thread. I find much of the Star Wars EU distasteful in much the same way it appears some have found the previous Star Trek regime distasteful, viewed partially through the lens of what Frank Herbert has described in the Dune series (since at least Dune Messiah). Just for the record, I hope I've never come off as personally insulting you. I do enjoy your analysis of things, even if I disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Not being a serious "hardcore" Trekkie or anything, and only going by what's been posted in this thread and that linked imdb spoiler review, let me try to piece together some coherent ramblings on the Star Trek reboot: As a more "serious" Trekkie I agree with everything you've said there, just look at the "evil" federation ship too, it's got design elements straight off the Enterprise-E. They have the subplot about the Prime Directive at the begining too. In some of the later Trek (might be late TNG even), they have this ridiculous notion of the good guys letting primitive races get wiped out by easily preventable disasters because it's the "natural course", and in the opening for STID Kirk and Spock refuse to let a planet of tribal people die even if it means breaking that directive, which I presume Kirk gets in trouble for later I didn't pick up on this stuff as much in '09 but it is definitely there. The funny thing about '09 regarding continuity is that it's actually full of little references and details for trekkies to pick up on, while still managing to be, well, fun. And not at all tied down by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Gatts posted:You know what, yeah. Having Spock put his mind into McCoy and then be resurrected by being on a planet, aged to that one particular point, and then having his mind restored later on...it's nuts. ST3 is kind of a giant mess as far as things like that go, which is why it's generally Not Very Good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:ST3 is kind of a giant mess as far as things like that go, which is why it's generally Not Very Good. It is not a goofy as some as the poo poo from the show. I mean people died and got better since they were focused on a chick or a robot made them better. That robot also erased a persons personality, but od not worry she got better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
It does sound pretty silly but I have to say you guys are definitely blowing it out of proportion, especially by rejecting comparisons to Q, etc., as somehow "less ridiculous" or "more-in-universe." They only seem that way because they have the weight of canon and nostalgia behind them. Try to imagine a Trek Lore without Q anywhere in it. Okay, now you just read a semi-plausible JJTrek plot that features some hamfisted shorthand summary of Q appearing. How do you feel? I mean seriously, be honest with yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:ST3 is kind of a giant mess as far as things like that go, which is why it's generally Not Very Good. Yeah, it was a convoluted way to go about things. And I'm going to spoiler this so people don't misinterpret it by connecting it to the new Trek. Although given the consequences of the movie before, the meaning to the characters he had, the sacrifice of the Enterprise, at least there's some good in ST3 with the characters not reacting to plot points but actively making decisions to do things to rescue a friend. That along with Scotty and the Excelsior bits. As much as I hated Trek 09 and don't have high hopes for this one I'm hoping there's the same sort of weight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
I read some of these spoilers even though I didn't really want to, but it seems one of the arguments was "Q isn't human, that's different." I completely disagree that it's fundamentally different, but that aside what's apparently in this movie is way, way less stupid sounding than Wesley Crusher spontaneously gaining the ability to control time and space because of Destiny or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
There is nothing in that description of the plot that is sillier than anything in the shows, period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:There is nothing in that description of the plot that is sillier than anything in the shows, period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:There is nothing in that description of the plot that is sillier than anything in the shows, period. I don't understand why this is a valid criticism. The movies are a different standard than the TV shows. We expect a higher caliber of quality when we're talking about the big screen and attempting to appeal to a slightly wider audience than a semi-serialized television show. You can use a magical plot device to solve a problem on the show. It's bad writing, but you've got another 21 episodes to do something good with at least. There's a lower standard for a sci-fi TV show and a blockbuster movie. However, to counterpoint my own argument, Star Trek IV exists. It's practically a non-entity in terms of plot, and is driven entirely by the acting and characters. It is also good, but would easily read as a crappy synopsis in a TV Guide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
STIV: - Future people come back in time to rescue whales - Future people marvel at how loving backward present people are - Wacky hijinks ensue
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:I don't understand why this is a valid criticism. The movies are a different standard than the TV shows. We expect a higher caliber of quality when we're talking about the big screen and attempting to appeal to a slightly wider audience than a semi-serialized television show. You can use a magical plot device to solve a problem on the show. It's bad writing, but you've got another 21 episodes to do something good with at least. There's a lower standard for a sci-fi TV show and a blockbuster movie. It's a valid criticism when the people most upset about the leaked plot details are pulling the "not in my Trek" card. A lot of stuff is Trek, whether people want to admit it or not. That said you can reduce anything to sounding silly as poo poo, as has been pointed out before, so I really have no patience for any criticism that comes from a place of "well I haven't actually seen this film but I read what some angry nerd thinks on the Internet and now I agree!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:It's a valid criticism when the people most upset about the leaked plot details are pulling the "not in my Trek" card. A lot of stuff is Trek, whether people want to admit it or not. That said you can reduce anything to sounding silly as poo poo, as has been pointed out before, so I really have no patience for any criticism that comes from a place of "well I haven't actually seen this film but I read what some angry nerd thinks on the Internet and now I agree!" See also: the "not MY Mandarin!" thing in the Iron Man 3 thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:I don't understand why this is a valid criticism. The movies are a different standard than the TV shows. We expect a higher caliber of quality when we're talking about the big screen and attempting to appeal to a slightly wider audience than a semi-serialized television show. You can use a magical plot device to solve a problem on the show. It's bad writing, but you've got another 21 episodes to do something good with at least. There's a lower standard for a sci-fi TV show and a blockbuster movie. Since JJTrek seems to be going for a "grittier" feel all around, I have a hard time believing that he's going be pulling literal magic out of his rear end. I'm sure it will be explained in the film to about the same degree of plausibility as any other sci-fi voodoo without compromising the film's appeal within the "larger audience" for which it is intended. If not, may I be struck down by the Gods of Trek Lore. I mean, on paper any plot device involving resurrection can be read as lazy deus ex machina bullshit. But at the end of the day we don't know til we watch the film. I'm not saying I think it's going to be a great film, I'm just saying we don't know and I don't feel this particular plot point adds much weight one way or another. speng31b fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Yeah, it was a convoluted way to go about things. And I'm going to spoiler this so people don't misinterpret it by connecting it to the new Trek. Although given the consequences of the movie before, the meaning to the characters he had, the sacrifice of the Enterprise, at least there's some good in ST3 with the characters not reacting to plot points but actively making decisions to do things to rescue a friend. That along with Scotty and the Excelsior bits. Yes, none of the arguably "silly" things in ST3 were necessarily plot drivers. The point was the friendship, the sacrifices made for it, etc. The characters were moving the plot forward, not being sort of thrown around and reaction as in ST09. The foolishness stuff was mainly stage dressing, so it gets handwaved to a certain extent. octoroon posted:I'm sure it will be explained in the film to about the same degree of plausibility. If you've seen anything at all, anything JJ Abrams has ever done, what would ever make you think that he would suddenly start taking the time to explain something like this? It's an INHERENTLY flawed concept that can't be made sensible, but the more important thing is that he's not even going to try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
I cracked. I definitely think the magical space blood is open to criticism, though I'm taking it with the grain of salt that the summary of it is coming from a guy who said "when you mess with the Wrath of Khan, you get the wrath of me," which definitely signals a certain hostility to the Khan premise to begin with. I just think that all the critique right now is about the premise of "magical space blood," which definitely can be rebutted with "how is this different than katra and McCoy carrying Spock's brain around (to say nothing of the actual TOS episode, Spock's Brain) and Spock's body being totally resurrected and perfectly aged up by the Genesis Planet and banging Saavik," which honestly is a lot more fantastical than the idea that a genetically engineered Augment might have some rad biochemistry." The reason the katra stuff worked, insofar as it did, is because they managed to gloss over the fact that it was a way to back out of the ending of Wrath of Khan with compelling character work from Sarek, McCoy, and Kirk - in other words, the writing of it. Given that the early reviews seem positive, I'm inclined to believe they pull something similar off here. That said, yeah, I'm pissed that they took one of the more iconic characters of color from the Star Trek franchise and replaced him with a white guy, especially since when the rumors of Khan hit with Cumberbatch in the role there was a significant response along these lines and they replied with "Well he's not Khan." I understand misdirection, but hiding behind marketing to dodge whitewashing questions is sketchy. I mean, given that they offered it to Benicio Del Toro originally, they at least realized this could be a thing. AlternateAccount posted:If you've seen anything at all, anything JJ Abrams has ever done, what would ever make you think that he would suddenly start taking the time to explain something like this? It's an INHERENTLY flawed concept that can't be made sensible, but the more important thing is that he's not even going to try. How is this different from katras? The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:If you've seen anything at all, anything JJ Abrams has ever done, what would ever make you think that he would suddenly start taking the time to explain something like this? It's an INHERENTLY flawed concept that can't be made sensible, but the more important thing is that he's not even going to try. "But what ARE the Lost numbers?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
What does it take for an element of fiction to become plausible "enough" or "internally consistent" or whatever that all even means? An entry in the official star trek wiki?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:If you've seen anything at all, anything JJ Abrams has ever done, what would ever make you think that he would suddenly start taking the time to explain something like this? It's an INHERENTLY flawed concept that can't be made sensible, but the more important thing is that he's not even going to try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
My favorite criticism so far is that you can't use Space Magic in movies but it's ok on TV.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
So since THRESHOLD exists, we can never hold a production with over a hundred times the resources to any sort of standard at all? And do people not see the difference between: The Enterprise encounters a being of unlimited power and then something interesting happens. and Some poo poo happens and then a random and nonsensical device is used to resolve a portion of the plot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
That's unfair, as 'standard' would imply some sort of consistent baseline or that the entire criticism is at all meaningful in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:So since THRESHOLD exists, we can never hold a production with over a hundred times the resources to any sort of standard at all? Nah, it's more that if space magic makes for an engaging story, then that trumps anxieties over The Rules of A Universe That Isn't Real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
This space magic clearly isn't darker and grittier enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Some poo poo happens and then a random and nonsensical device is used to resolve a portion of the plot. How is it "random"? Khan is a superhuman. If it had been McCoy's blood that would be random and nonsensical. But there is a reason why it works. It's not inherently flawed, it's not random, it's not nonsensical. Are you a genetic superhuman expert posting from the future or something? Cause you're violating the poo poo out of the Temporal Prime Directive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:So since THRESHOLD exists, we can never hold a production with over a hundred times the resources to any sort of standard at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Does simply putting an implausible and inexplicable event earlier on in your runtime suddenly validate it for all following instances?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:What I'm still trying to grasp is why you're, in your own words, perfectly okay with 'totally inexplicable space magic', but 'totally inexplicable space blood' is not okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Does simply putting an implausible and inexplicable event earlier on in your runtime suddenly validate it for all following instances? Why does it, of all other thematic and symbolic elements in the work, need some extra validation? It's validation in the work is intrinsic to its visual representation. Star Trek isn't a historical retelling or documentary. Plus, yea, it's pretty silly to be harping on bullet points from a blog post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
The reason I'm not thrilled about this movie has nothing to do with space magic; it's because I was hoping the film would tread new territory instead of re-hashing the old--something I thought the last film was trying to set up. I also prefer the more military-themed, submarine-style of the older movies' space ships.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Does simply putting an implausible and inexplicable event earlier on in your runtime suddenly validate it for all following instances? If it's integrated as part of the story's premise, then it's loving fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:11
|
|