|
Just got back from seeing this myself and I thought it was awesome! *prods Jut*  Really enjoyed. Kept you going all throughout. Maybe a bit predictable toward the end, but I still found it a really enjoyable movie. Wouldn't mind going to see it again actually.
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
When Spock was beating Khan down and Uhura was all like "Stop it Spock" all I could think of was the Jersey Shore and these scenes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO2pFQMX2zY
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
The main problem I see is that it isn't a remake of one Star Trek film. It's a remake of two of them with the plots mashed together and there just isn't enough time to do both plots properly while still trying to treat iconic supporting characters a star moment of their own and the result is that neither quite make sense. For example: Benedict Cumberbatch's character goes to a place in the film and him going to that place is quite important for one of the plots. But his character doesn't actually have a reason to go to that place and in retrospect it becomes glaring in a way that I don't feel any of the plot 'holes' in the 2009 film significantly detract from it. They should have picked one story or the other, not try to do both.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The main problem I see is that it isn't a remake of one Star Trek film. It's a remake of two of them with the plots mashed together and there just isn't enough time to do both plots properly while still trying to treat iconic supporting characters a star moment of their own and the result is that neither quite make sense. For example: Benedict Cumberbatch's character goes to a place in the film and him going to that place is quite important for one of the plots. But his character doesn't actually have a reason to go to that place and in retrospect it becomes glaring in a way that I don't feel any of the plot 'holes' in the 2009 film significantly detract from it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The only reason I can think of for Harrison going there is that he knew it would give Admiral Robocop the perfect excuse to kick off his plan for war with the Klingons, meaning he'd bring and use what he thought were the super-torpedoes, and that in turn would let Khan recover and revive his people. However, Kirk threw everything off by volunteering to take the Enterprise rather than letting Robo send the USS Vengeance, so I don't know how everything was supposed to work out at all. Hollywood villain 7th-dimensional chess, I guess. That's what I thought at first, except when Khan goes to Kronos he thinks his crew are dead. It's only when Kirk tells him how many torpedoes that he realises they're still alive and that Marcus is apparently such an idiot he hasn't realised where the missing Cryo-tubes are. Then instead of killing Kirk and the others and goading Sulu into firing his crew to him, he surrenders because that's what he calculates to be his best move.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
I saw this last night and enjoyed the hell out of it, but I don't really have much to say that hasn't already been said by everyone else. For some reason I really liked how Kirk had a vintage turntable and tube amp in his apartment. It's a nice little callback to how his apartment in TWOK was packed with antiques. I can't wait to see what they come up with for the next movie, and it's about time they bring Star Trek back to TV. Alchenar posted:That's what I thought at first, except when Khan goes to Kronos he thinks his crew are dead. It's only when Kirk tells him how many torpedoes that he realises they're still alive and that Marcus is apparently such an idiot he hasn't realised where the missing Cryo-tubes are. Then instead of killing Kirk and the others and goading Sulu into firing his crew to him, he surrenders because that's what he calculates to be his best move. I thought it was implied that firing the torpedoes would destroy the cryotubes and kill Khan's crew. Surrender is the only way to guarantee that the torpedoes wouldn't be fired. Bargearse fucked around with this message at 02:57 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Bargearse posted:I thought it was implied that firing the torpedoes would destroy the cryotubes and kill Khan's crew. Surrender is the only way to guarantee that the torpedoes wouldn't be fired. Why would he have put his crew into the torpedoes if firing the torpedoes would kill them? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Vulpes posted:Why would he have put his crew into the torpedoes if firing the torpedoes would kill them? As a means of smuggling the cryotubes to safety. When he was caught, he assumed Section 31 had them all killed until Kirk told him how many torpedoes he had and put the pieces together.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Bargearse posted:As a means of smuggling the cryotubes to safety. When he was caught, he assumed Section 31 had them all killed until Kirk told him how many torpedoes he had and put the pieces together. Yeah, once he learns they're on the ship he's desperate to know how many there are. When he learns it is ALL of his crew (whom he had assumed were dead) he instantly surrenders despite clearly being able to defeat them all so he can reunite with them.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Saw this movie yesterday, loved every minute of it. Looking forward to seeing it again in 3D next weekend. I started to cringe when Spock and Uhura had their lover's tiff in the trade shuttle, but that little scene ended much better than I would have expected.
Cheap Trick fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
See this is why they should either have gone with the Wrath remake or the Undiscovered Country remake plot. The story would have been better if it was a straight up 'We woke Khan up and he went rogue. Also he's trying to wake up the rest of his crew and we have no idea where the gently caress they are'. It would also have been better if it had been a straight up 'Everyone thinks war with the Klingons is inevitable, there's a starfleet conspiracy to have the war sooner rather than later.' Either one of those plots makes for a good film with the themes they wanted to go with. Instead they try both and it's just messy.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:See this is why they should either have gone with the Wrath remake or the Undiscovered Country remake plot. The story would have been better if it was a straight up 'We woke Khan up and he went rogue. Also he's trying to wake up the rest of his crew and we have no idea where the gently caress they are'. It would also have been better if it had been a straight up 'Everyone thinks war with the Klingons is inevitable, there's a starfleet conspiracy to have the war sooner rather than later.' I don't see how it was messy at all, the inevitability of Klingon war was the backdrop, the resurrection of Khan and the attempt to use his abilities for the purposes of militarizing Starfleet was part of that, and of course that ends with Khan going rogue. Couldn't be more straight forward.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
I saw it on Saturday and really liked it. I'm kinda expecting a lot of nerd rage over it being a remake of TWOK, but I thought it was very faithful and respectful. I wasn't sure about Quinto's "KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNN!!!" but I guess it had to be done. I did like the role reversal from the orginal, though. Cumberbatch was excellent, too. Have to say, it looked absolutely fantastic in 3D IMAX, too. I saw a "preview" of it before The Hobbit in December, which was basically the opening on Nibiru, although it cut before they go rescue Spock to leave a bit of a cliffhanger. Oh, and I loved Spock calling Spock Prime too. That was a nice surprise. I'm kinda hoping that the events from this film end up leading to a Klingon War, in the next film maybe.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
I saw this today and for the first half or so I was really enjoying it, and then something just snapped and I found myself just thinking it was absolutely awful. So many things just seemed to be shoehorned in there for no reason other than "hey guys look, a reference to a thing!" This was fine at first, but then they started pushing it further and further and by the time it got to Kirk going into the Warp Core I'd had enough. The plot stopped being interesting because I knew where everything was going and what was going to happen after it all, thanks to Bones and the Tribble... which I'll get into in a second. What started out as something fantastic and great just started to push the envelope further and further, and eventually winded up just becoming an incredibly trite parody of itself rather than what I guess the intention was. I think the first time I rolled my eyes was the completely pointless Leonard Nimoy scene that really added absolutely nothing to the plot except to serve as yet another reference. I'm not the worlds biggest Star Trek fan so I went into this movie expecting a bit of what I knew from growing up and what I saw in Star Trek 2009, but I didn't really know much else aside from what I saw in trailers. I've seen the older movies and stuff and at first I was pleased about who the villain was, I thought it was great to have a modern Khan... that turned out to be wishful thinking though. The first half? All that and more, and then certain plot points just kind of disappeared, things started to get a bit convoluted and stupid and then everything in the above paragraph. I just didn't feel like any of it really worked at all. What made it worse was the elements introduced to the movie that got me excited (for example, Klingon involvement) just wind up being cast to the wayside, and the ridiculous amount of fake outs and such used in the combat sequences started to grate after a while, too. The plot just seemed to turn into a huge mess by the end, like they tried to take it in several directions at once and couldn't decide on which one they wanted to see through to the end. Whenever a plot point was concluded that just felt forced and unsatisfying. The plot concerning USS Vengeance purpose was really uninspired too, I thought. This also got to me; Khan repeatedly explains how it can be manned by just one guy. It stops being foreshadowing when you repeat something several times guys. He says it two or three times and by the last time he said it I just sat thinking "well that's just taken all tension from this part of the movie, because now we know Khan is going to get that ship thanks to him basically telling us!" Some of the acting was really poor too, and some things were just completely pointless and out of context as per the characters and the scene themselves. To say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch either. I haven't seen Sherlock or indeed anything else he's in (that I recall) but his performance just felt forced. I was never fully clear on his motivations either because his actions just weren't in line with what he was saying. It was as if they tried to set up a huge rivalry between his character and Kirk but instead of going into that further it was just kind of like "you guys are two sides of the same coin now!" Everything about the relationships between these characters seemed to ignore a lot of what happened in Star Trek 2009, or was just sort of forced upon the scene as it benefit the action. I think the worst of it is the scenes I felt ended up becoming a parody of themselves. I'm sure that's as much the scenes themselves tainting my view of the performance as it was the performances tainting the scenes though. I don't know. That said, some of it was pretty good, Chris Pine was great for the most part (except for the scene I mentioned when Bones is injecting the Tribble with Khan's blood. He's having a huge rant at Khan and then out of nowhere "HEY WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO THAT TRIBBLE?" It was one of the worst things I've seen in a while in a huge release like this. I think it stuck out because of how bad this piece of exposition is delivered, and that just ruined everything about Kirk's 'sacrifice' in the Warp Core and whatnot). The film LOOKED fantastic though, I'm pleased that they toned down the lens flares whilst still maintaining the fantastic style of Star Trek 2009. The opening was excellent too, I felt like I had just been dumped right in the middle of an episode of the TV show. As I mentioned I thought the first half of the movie was really strong, too. I just can't get over how badly they managed to drop the ball on the run up to and during the finale of the movie. It made no sense to me. I was loving it and then all of a sudden my opinion did a complete 180, and this was in the middle of watching it rather than after reading forum threads and articles and over thinking things. I've never experienced that before, is this what becoming cynical about film feels like? I never asked for this. I feel as though I have an extremely different opinion to almost everyone who saw this movie though, so maybe it's just me. I'm almost disappointed in myself for thinking so poorly of this film, I wanted to like it so much going into it. I loved Star Trek 2009 and the Trailer looked pretty awesome. But alas. Wow this post is starting to look like a CIA document. I think I'll stop there for now. iTrust fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Great picture, haven't seen anything but the previous Abrams' movie. Very dumb but fun and with enough action. Three notes. 1. Benedict Cumberbatch owns bones. (E: Guess I already knew that after Parade's End but w/e.) 2. Sulu seems like a stand up guy. 3. Apparently Spock knows acupuncture? Boatswain fucked around with this message at 23:08 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
iTrust posted:Some of the acting was really poor too, and some things were just completely pointless and out of context as per the characters and the scene themselves. To say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch either. I haven't seen Sherlock or indeed anything else he's in (that I recall) but his performance just felt forced. I was never fully clear on his motivations either because his actions just weren't in line with what he was saying. It was as if they tried to set up a huge rivalry between his character and Kirk but instead of going into that further it was just kind of like "you guys are two sides of the same coin now!" Boatswain posted:3. Apparently Spock knows acupuncture?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:I think his actions weren't in line with what he was saying because he was trying to play everyone. Plus his goals change throughout the film. His initial plot is just to gently caress up Section 31, and hide out where Starfleet can't get him without starting a war (although why they couldn't just transwarp-transport there I'm not entirely sure). Once he finds out his crew are alive, he wants to rescue them. Then when the USS Vengeance shows up, he figures he can steal it. None of it is really a huge master-plan of his or anything, at least that's the way I see it. But he's cunning, and will take advantage of the situation if he can. Credit where credit is due though, it was an ambitious direction to attempt. Beyond that though I'll be the first to admit that I'm one of those people that finds it irritating when Hollywood thinks audiences are dumb, part of me feels like this film wanted to let the audience make assumptions like these about a character on their own merit. That much is ambitious of the film makers. I suppose if you're going to attempt such a thing the safe bet is on the sequel though. It just would've worked better if there weren't several other things going on as well as the motives and actions of this guy. I'm almost looking forward to watching this movie again, even though I thought it was awful. Part of that is because I have this blind hope that all I took from my first viewing is wrong. I want to like this movie. The things it does right it does really well. It's just a kick in the balls that the things it does wrong it does on a whole other level. I didn't care for the TDKR after my first viewing but I came to love it after another go. Maybe this will happen with Into Darkness. Maybe 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
iTrust posted:I feel as though I have an extremely different opinion to almost everyone who saw this movie though, so maybe it's just me. I'm almost disappointed in myself for thinking so poorly of this film, I wanted to like it so much going into it. I loved Star Trek 2009 and the Trailer looked pretty awesome. But alas. No, I was in exactly the same place. Thought it was ok, but ended up thinking it was an absolute turd. Every plot point is explained to you, in detail, as if you were a child. It's not just Chekovs gun (the concept, not movie Chekov), it's the fact that Chekovs gun get's held up to the camera and you are told THIS WILL BE IMPORTANT AND THIS IS HOW AND WHY. And even when they don't overexplain something it doesn't matter, because it's a pretty disasterous mess of incredibly forced plot elements, more idiot ball passing than I've pretty much ever seen, and action scenes that don't know when to quit. Did we really need to spend 5 minutes sliding round the Budweiser brewery? You could have cut that entire bit and just gone straight to the warp core and it would have been a better movie for it. or Benedicts endless gun-kata against the klingons . I found myself longing for some downtime, like leisurely, measured action movies like, uh, The Avengers. I laughed at a few bits, but never as much as 2009, and yeah, it definately disappears into HEY A REFERENCE too much. SO. Yeah. Yuk. Cellophane S posted:Probably but it's a 2 hour movie, how much exposition do you want? I don't have a problem with dramatic music, but it did kind of seem like they had one main refrain for heroic action scenes and god drat they were going to use the hell out of it. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 23:55 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:No, I was in exactly the same place. Thought it was ok, but ended up thinking it was an absolute turd. Every plot point is explained to you, in detail, as if you were a child. It's not just Chekovs gun (the concept, not movie Chekov), it's the fact that Chekovs gun get's held up to the camera and you are told THIS WILL BE IMPORTANT AND THIS IS HOW AND WHY. What I hated is that the motivations for the antagonists aren't shown, they're just told to us. Marcus tells us in the first 10 minutes of the film proper that he's in charge of Section 31 and is preparing for war with the Kingons. Literally nobody else in Starfleet (and there's plenty of opportunity for Pike to say something) mentions war tensions with the Kingons. So aside from the fact that he just announced to the audience that he's a bad guy, rather than show us his motivation the scrip just has the character spell it out. Similarly, Khan just delivers a monologue where he states that he's all angry because he was used and blackmailed and thought his crew was dead etc etc. It's all so shallow because there's not enough time to even explain their motivations in the way that Nero was explained in 2009. I have a fairly clear idea in my head as to how to straighten out the plots - they needed to drop one of the antagonists and the plotlines they were remaking. Example - lets say we want to run with the remake of Undiscovered Country thread. Start with a pre-credits sequence that's on the bridge of the Enterprise. They're responding to a distress signal from a freighter in the neutral zone. Aha, the audience thinks! It's the Kobayashi Maru, I've seen this! Except it isn't - they're really there. Things go south and Kirk has to rescue Spock in much the same way he does in this film, except the breach that Spock reports is that of the neutral zone. The rest of the film is Marcus sending the Enterprise off to do shady stuff on the Klingon border and Kirk and the crew gradually realise there's a false-flag conspiracy to start a war. No Khan. Neat, simple, show that the Klingons are an issue and that everyone thinks war is coming. Follow that story properly. I thought the acting was great. I thought the character story between Kirk and Spock was great. I thought the overarching plot that all of this takes place in was a train-wreck. Bonus unintended terrible moment: Spock literally asks Carol Marcus what she's doing on the ship. I agree - her character has literally no purpose and is totally irrelevant to the story. Worse, she takes the place of Spock in the Torpedo surgery scene when there's an obvious reason in this film why mid-way through you might want to confront Spock with the possible death of a friend that he's able to avert at the last moment. The underwear scenes makes it pretty clear that her main purpose for existence is to reassure the viewer that Kirk still has the notgays. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 00:10 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Absolutely, they just flat out state a whole bunch of poo poo and I'm supposed to care. And worse, quite often I'm supposed to care because of context lent by the original shows or movies!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Absolutely, they just flat out state a whole bunch of poo poo and I'm supposed to care. And worse, quite often I'm supposed to care because of context lent by the original shows or movies! Oh yeah, they rely so completely on that that characters in film don't react to things the audience is supposed to react to. Specificially: 1.Marcus reveals Section 31. If you know what that is then Starfleet having a secret black-ops division is a pretty big deal. Zero reaction from Kirk and Spock. 2.Khan reveal. You just find out you have space-hitler on your ship. Zero reaction. Someone casually mentions about 15 minutes later in the film that he's a bad guy because he genocided people he thought were genetically inferior. Generally nobody cares though. Those are really really important things for you to actually care about any of the callbacks and things happening in the film and it just isn't dealt with properly at all.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
^^^ I guess it's hard to watch this movie if you had to high expectations? I think they did everything you've come to expect in movies out of Hollywood and they did it well in addition.irlZaphod posted:Do you mean the neck pinch he does on Khan during the climax? Yes. Some alien martial arts?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:^^^ I guess it's hard to watch this movie if you had to high expectations? I think they did everything you've come to expect in movies out of Hollywood and they did it well in addition. Or one of the most iconic things Vulcan do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Or one of the most iconic things Vulcan do. Can't it be both 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:^^^ I guess it's hard to watch this movie if you had to high expectations? I think they did everything you've come to expect in movies out of Hollywood and they did it well in addition. iTrust fucked around with this message at 00:43 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
iTrust posted:I don't know, I went into it expecting a good sci-fi story with explosions and spaceships with a nice little plot to go along with, much like Star Trek 2009. I don't think anyone would call that expecting too much. Well clearly we disagree on Cumberbatch, and I try to think as little as possible when I'm watching these kinds of movies, this way I'm able to enjoy poo poo like Oblivion and Prometheus. What quality does 2009 Star Trek have that 2013 lacks?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:Well clearly we disagree on Cumberbatch, and I try to think as little as possible when I'm watching these kinds of movies, this way I'm able to enjoy poo poo like Oblivion and Prometheus. What quality does 2009 Star Trek have that 2013 lacks? That doesn't answer your question though. For me, 2009 is a movie I can watch again and again. The plot isn't a mess like it is in the latest, Nero is a villain that doesn't rely on sources not in the film to make sense and is explained there and then as it is relevant to the plot. The writing and acting is generally just better and the chemistry between all the characters feels a lot less forced. I don't need to assume things about what is going on and everything in the film makes sense to me as a person watching it, but also to the characters in it. 2009 gets a lot of poo poo for various reasons and it isn't a perfect movie, but compared to the latest it is a lot more enjoyable to watch. e: As an aside I'm guessing it's pointless to spoil the villain given that the OP pretty clearly spells it out, huh. iTrust fucked around with this message at 01:03 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:Well clearly we disagree on Cumberbatch, and I try to think as little as possible when I'm watching these kinds of movies, this way I'm able to enjoy poo poo like Oblivion and Prometheus. What quality does 2009 Star Trek have that 2013 lacks? . Don't get me wrong, 2009 has a lot of problems I can broadly forgive, but here? Everything feels so drat forced. People start taking on character aspects or spouting technobabble that are discarded ten minutes later once they serve a plot purpose, and sure, every movie does this to an extent, but here it's so incredibly obvious that they, say, need to write Scotty into a different location, or whatever. As well as characters handing the idiot ball (particularly the badguys) so frequently you wonder how they even begin to carry out any kind of plot. And, yeah, the first movie had some incredibly stupid plotholes and some really forced plot elements, but Into Darkness hits you with dumb poo poo at such machine gun place it just pulled me miles out of the movie. (I knew I wasn't going to enjoy the movie when they did the "KIRK GETS DEMOTED" plot in the first 10 minutes, and threw it out as quickly. ) Also, for such a seemingly pacey movie, it really needed an editor because some bits (thinking the Gravity failure scene just went on forever.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Admiral marcus' motivation was clear. obviously John Paxton didn't actually die, travelled to the future to try again Terra Prime forever!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
iTrust posted:I don't know, I went into it expecting a good sci-fi story with explosions and spaceships with a nice little plot to go along with, much like Star Trek 2009. I don't think anyone would call that expecting too much. That's what I expected too. Luckily, that's exactly the movie I saw. Very entertaining film.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
iTrust posted:I saw this today and for the first half or so I was really enjoying it, and then something just snapped and I found myself just thinking it was absolutely awful. I agree with you completely. It started out well (although Spock annoyed me with his bitching about the prime directive when they were clearly trying to breach it grr but at least that was dealt with quickly) but it quickly turned into reference town with an plot that was messy and predictable.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Saw it at a screening tonight in LA and I enjoyed it quite a bit for the most part. Definitely better than the first one for me, which I had a bunch of plot problems with. This one had a better villain, more fun/interesting action sequences, and tried to keep you on your toes with a twist every 15 minutes or so, some I predicted, some I didn't. There's a bunch of things you can nitpick the hell out of though: - The tribble scene was so shoe-horned in, and just super clunkily handled. Kirk and Khan are in the middle of a serious conversation, Kirk pauses for no reason to ask Bones what he's doing, cue random blood talk, Kirk goes back to Khan conversation. I know subtlety's not these writers' strong suit, but COME THE gently caress ON. - Alice Eve in her underwear served no other purpose than Alice Eve in her underwear. It's literally not explained in the film why she got undressed. - Kirk's character arc throughout the whole film is non-existant. We open with an example of him breaking the rules to save someone on his crew. He's subsequently told he acted incorrectly. We emphasize throughout the film over and over that he'll do anything to save his crew. We end the film with him sacrificing himself to save his crew. So literally he learns nothing throughout the film other than his original opinions were always correct. - Spock/Uhura romance goes nowhere and they were fighting over nothing. - Scottie really resigned over nothing. You mean they won't tell me what their top secret missile is made out of? I quit! Does he not understand that as an officer on a ship, he's not entitled to all classified information? I really liked the Nimoy cameo and the tie-in to WoK though.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
That sounded like good old scotty to me?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
theperminator posted:That sounded like good old scotty to me? Besides, nobody making these films gives a gently caress about military protocol. After all, in the first one we had a guy be promoted from disgraced cadet to captain of the most advanced ship in the fleet in like a day and a half.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
qbert posted:There's a bunch of things you can nitpick the hell out of though: People keep saying this, but I didn't see it at all. Kirk and Khan are having the conversation, and Khan says something (I can't remember exactly what) that completely stumps Kirk. Kirk has this look of 'well...poo poo...where do I go from here?' and changes the subject to give him a moment to think. Once Bones stops talking, Kirk asks Khan if he's coming to the Vengeance or not, having had a moment to recompose himself. It's a shoe-horned in line to set up Kirk's revival in the last ten minutes, but it's not the massively stupid moment people are bothered about. Saw the movie twice over the weekend. Hated the 3D and really wished that IMAX would do 2D showings. Thought the movie itself was fantastic. Hit all the marks I was hoping to, and set a couple of things up pretty nicely for the third movie. GlenMR fucked around with this message at 10:30 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
qbert posted:- Alice Eve in her underwear served no other purpose than Alice Eve in her underwear. It's literally not explained in the film why she got undressed. It's explained literally by the character right before it happens. When she tells Kirk to turn around. It was to put her space suit on or something.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I didn't have much of a problem with Scotty's actions - it was kind of an extreme response, but then every response in these movies is EXTREME!!! Scotty was always played as doing everything he could to protect 'his' ship, and objecting strongly to mysterious weapons that might screw up his engines is in keeping with that. What Scotty did made complete sense to me. He's the chief engineer on what's supposed to be a ship intended for exploration, and the captain says "We're bringing these stealth space cruise missiles on board, sign for them or else"? drat right he should have resigned, orders be damned.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Cheap Trick posted:What Scotty did made complete sense to me. He's the chief engineer on what's supposed to be a ship intended for exploration, and the captain says "We're bringing these stealth space cruise missiles on board, sign for them or else"? drat right he should have resigned, orders be damned. Yeah I thought it was pretty clear that his objections to the torpedoes was just a weak rationalization to try and stop Kirk from starting a BLOOD SPACE WAR.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
Cheap Trick posted:What Scotty did made complete sense to me. He's the chief engineer on what's supposed to be a ship intended for exploration, and the captain says "We're bringing these stealth space cruise missiles on board, sign for them or else"? drat right he should have resigned, orders be damned. That's pretty much what I thought. Starfleet has usually been depicted as a government space agency first and foremost, military matters are a distant secondary concern. Having been told "we're going to the Klingon homeworld with these top secret weapons", his resignation was an attempt to either stop the mission, or failing that, have no part in it himself.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:It's explained literally by the character right before it happens. When she tells Kirk to turn around. It was to put her space suit on or something. Except Kirk doesn't go with her. They have to get other guy. There's literally no reason for her to change then and there. e: The issue with the Scotty scene is that while it technically makes sense, it's also very obviously contrived to get Scotty off the ship so he can provide a lazy deus ex-machina later in the film. Similarly Chekov clearly has gently caress all to do in the film so he's packed off to engineering and then there's a peril scene for Scotty and Kirk near the end that exists for the sole purpose of him showing up and saving them at the last second and it's a 'oh right, they needed to give the actor something moment.' It's just impossible not to notice that characters do things primarily because the plot requires them to. Scotty resigning and neither person backing down. Kirk not firing the torpedoes (irony, they don't have fuel cells anymore so if he had followed orders and tried to fire them then then nothing would have happened and the plot would have unravelled then and there). Khan goes to Kronos which is great for Marcus's plans but makes no sense because Khan doesn't actually have any reason to go to Kronos (he thinks his crew are all dead remember, he has no plan to trick Marcus into firing the torpedoes which wouldn't work anyway because they don't have any fuel). If they hadn't been trying to run the Khan and Starfleet war-conspiracy plots side by side then he could have just beamed to the Vengeance and the film could have been focused entirely on trying to hunt him down. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:01 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 12:48
|
|