|
Bargearse posted: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. Whales. And nuclear wessels.
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Bargearse posted: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.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Payndz posted:That's more a TNG-era thing, though, with Roddenberry coming up with bizarre suggestions that Picard is like Jacques Cousteau and the Enterprise is his Calypso (that happens to be run entirely along military lines and is capable of devastating planets, but whatever). In TOS, Kirk was an explorer, yes, but he was first and foremost a military commander frequently tasked with gunboat diplomacy. And Scotty wasn't just the guy with the spanners who kept the engines working, but also third in command of the entire ship, after Spock. The Undiscovered Country is a film that's explicitly about Kirk and the other Captains being dismayed at Starfleet demilitarizing.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:Whales. And nuclear wessels. I would love a scene where IN THE THROES OF ACTION Kirk and Spock run hard as gently caress in one direction on a busy street to rescue whales and Kirk bumps into Tom Cruise who is running hard as gently caress in the other direction to save the world and they look back at each other and are like Kirk: "WTF is your problem?!" Hunt: "Dumbass!" Kirk: "Well, double dumbass on you!" Spock: *Vulcan middle finger* Hunt: *taken aback like a wave of air hit him* And then they continue in their directions Gatts fucked around with this message at 13:54 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
iTrust posted: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. Alchenar posted:What I hated is that the motivations for the antagonists aren't shown, they're just told to us. 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.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted: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.' I do see where you're coming from. To be honest, when I'm watching movies, I'm willing to accept that the story may be "on rails" or have contrivances like this. Although I sure don't expect everyone else to watch movies this way. Maybe I'm just not a discerning viewer 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Payndz posted:That's more a TNG-era thing, though, with Roddenberry coming up with bizarre suggestions that Picard is like Jacques Cousteau and the Enterprise is his Calypso (that happens to be run entirely along military lines and is capable of devastating planets, but whatever). In TOS, Kirk was an explorer, yes, but he was first and foremost a military commander frequently tasked with gunboat diplomacy. And Scotty wasn't just the guy with the spanners who kept the engines working, but also third in command of the entire ship, after Spock. Fair point. It has been a while since I've watched TOS after all. Ivor Biggun posted:Whales. And nuclear wessels. Not even kidding, if they did this I'd be pre-ordering tickets right now. Bargearse fucked around with this message at 15:26 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
I'm surprised no one mentioned this in the ripping apart of the plot: Spock objects to being saved over violating the prime directive, then gets Kirk demoted because of violating the prime directive. Isn't what he's doing in the volcano also a violation of the prime directive?: Non-interference in the development or evolution of a primitive species? Or do they explain that away with a one-liner?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Zapp Brannigan posted:I'm surprised no one mentioned this in the ripping apart of the plot: Spock objects to being saved over violating the prime directive, then gets Kirk demoted because of violating the prime directive. Isn't what he's doing in the volcano also a violation of the prime directive?: Non-interference in the development or evolution of a primitive species? Or do they explain that away with a one-liner? He says something to the tune of "don't rescue me, they would see you." Does anybody know if there was a specific reason why they put new music over the early scene where the child is saved, and the villain meets his pawn? I liked the old (preview) music, even though I think it was a rip-off of some 80s/90s pop tune. Also, Beastie Boys. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Cheap Trick posted:I do see where you're coming from. To be honest, when I'm watching movies, I'm willing to accept that the story may be "on rails" or have contrivances like this. Although I sure don't expect everyone else to watch movies this way. Maybe I'm just not a discerning viewer I'm willing to accept rails to a degree. The problem with this film is that scenes are obviously written in in order to give actors something to do, rather than because they drive the plot in any significant way. They have an all-star cast and try to give everyone 'their scene', but the result is that everyone just feels underused and I feel that time spent giving actors these scenes could have been better spent putting some flesh on the main plot.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Cheap Trick posted:I do see where you're coming from. To be honest, when I'm watching movies, I'm willing to accept that the story may be "on rails" or have contrivances like this. Although I sure don't expect everyone else to watch movies this way. Maybe I'm just not a discerning viewer I'm similarly happy to accept a contrivance that gets a movie going, he'll, I love most of the marvel universe movies and they are full of them. But man. This film just feels like one big contrivance. Nothing felt natural or believable even with the massive amount of leeway a scifi action film gets in that regard. Even the swooping camera very carefully and deliberately taking a close look at the balls guys brain cpu head jack thing. Its an incredibly artificial feeling movie. Like they came up with a list of fun ideas (and its full of genuinely fun ideas I like) but had absolutely no idea how to string then together. And so, contrivance after contrivance, everything feeling forced, no time to calm things sown for just a minute to let our characters behave like people, they're too busy engineering the next plot point. Alchenar posted:The Undiscovered Country is a film that's explicitly about Kirk and the other Captains being dismayed at Starfleet demilitarizing. It's worth noting that tng was well under way when that film came out. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 19:00 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Bargearse posted: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. I agree. In fact the feeling I got out of the movie was now would be a good time for RDM to come back and make a 5 year series of a re-imagined Star Trek. Problem is I'm not sure how many of the actors from the movie would be willing to go with it. Zachary maybe, Chris Pine probably not, Karl Urban probably not. Would be pretty awesome though if they did!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:I agree. In fact the feeling I got out of the movie was now would be a good time for RDM to come back and make a 5 year series of a re-imagined Star Trek. Problem is I'm not sure how many of the actors from the movie would be willing to go with it. Zachary maybe, Chris Pine probably not, Karl Urban probably not. Karl Urban could not do it since he already has a tv show on fox this fall.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Well, if they really were going to turn the film franchise directly into a TV show with the same characters, it probably wouldn't be until next year anyway. I'd loving love it if they did though, I definitely got that vibe when they were talking about the five-year mission.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:His interpretation of the Prime Directive in this regard at that very moment seems to be "Don't let pre-warp species notice you while you're interfering with them." Yeah, the Prime Directive only applies when you interfere in ways that affect the culture and the individuals directly, doing poo poo where the natives wont notice is fine. In the original series, there is an episode where the Enterprise stops a comet from crashing into and annihilating all life on a planet. It's only in later series where the Prime Directive became a kind of insane dogma rather than something to give the characters moral dilemmas and you have poo poo like the ships doctor happily allowing a plague to wipe out an entire civilisation and call it the moral thing to do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:Yeah, the Prime Directive only applies when you interfere in ways that affect the culture and the individuals directly, doing poo poo where the natives wont notice is fine. In the original series, there is an episode where the Enterprise stops a comet from crashing into and annihilating all life on a planet. It's only in later series where the Prime Directive became a kind of insane dogma rather than something to give the characters moral dilemmas and you have poo poo like the ships doctor happily allowing a plague to wipe out an entire civilisation and call it the moral thing to do. In the original series Kirk does not give a gently caress about the prime directive. He saw it as a suggestion not law.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Well, if they really were going to turn the film franchise directly into a TV show with the same characters, it probably wouldn't be until next year anyway. I'd loving love it if they did though, I definitely got that vibe when they were talking about the five-year mission. Hey man they aren't going to open up that budweiser plant for filming every day.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
I saw it yesterday in 3D. There isn't any reason to see it in 3D though. I took off the glasses at a few points and couldn't see much difference. The movie was ok, but not as good as the first one. As the rest of the thread already seems to think so, the plot is one continues link of "Do something because the plot requires it". I liked the Tribble mention, and then hated it because it's such an obviously misplaced scene - it really needed to be a separate shot of McCoy doing something instead of being jammed into another scene completely unrelated. What's more, things happening in one scene that either didn't need to be there or were misplaced happens several times...I'm a lot more worried that Star Wars is going to have the same issue. Did that happen in LOST? The movie does ends on a good way to start off a new TV series, though I doubt we'll see it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Well i just got trolled hard. Bought a ticket for the 12:01 showing Wednesday May 15. Figured that was in 15 minutes. It's actually Thursday. Wtg fandango.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Well i just got trolled hard. Bought a ticket for the 12:01 showing Wednesday May 15. Figured that was in 15 minutes. It's actually Thursday. Wtg fandango. My group did the exact same thing today. They really, really need to find a way to clarify this.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I've actually gone up to a theater before and argued with a manager for 15 minutes because my ticket clearly says "12:01am Thursday" and that happens in about half an hour, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Someone dropped the ball. Either Regal gave bogus times to Fandango, or Fandango posted poo poo wrong. You can clearly go to Fandango.com right now and look at pretty much any Regal theater, and for Wednesday, May 15th at 12:01 there are showings. That is right about now, depending on your time zone in the country. The reality is, the tickets are for Thursday May 16th. I'm pissed about this, and someone should be responsible for this.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
This happened to me last summer with TDKR on opening night. I cannot for the life of me figure out why they just can't label the tickets Wednesday, 11:59 PM instead of Thursday, 12:01 AM. It's a lousy 2 minutes, gently caress their stupid computers. However, the last 6 months or so here in the suburbs of Phoenix, theaters like AMC and Harkins have done away with midnight showings altogether. Now they show advance screenings at 8 or 9 PM. Occasionally, they'll even toss a 10 PM showing in there for shits and giggles. Hell, i'm going to see Star Trek IMAX 3D tomorrow at 11:00 PM, and there's also an 8 PM showing at the same theater. It's either a new company policy, or some sort of regional decision. Either way, i'm glad they're starting to do this. I hated getting out of movies at 2-3 in the morning and then going home, sleeping for a few hours, and then having to get up and go to work the next day a grumpy mess. Gonz fucked around with this message at 07:42 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Someone dropped the ball. Either Regal gave bogus times to Fandango, or Fandango posted poo poo wrong. You can clearly go to Fandango.com right now and look at pretty much any Regal theater, and for Wednesday, May 15th at 12:01 there are showings. That is right about now, depending on your time zone in the country. The reality is, the tickets are for Thursday May 16th. I'm pissed about this, and someone should be responsible for this. I think they were, ironically, trying to prevent confusion. I guarantee that to most people "Thursday at midnight" means late on Thursday night. It's not technically correct, but it's how most people think.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Hasters posted:I think they were, ironically, trying to prevent confusion. I guarantee that to most people "Thursday at midnight" means late on Thursday night. It's not technically correct, but it's how most people think. When you specifically say 12:01 am on Thursday, though...
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Really liked the movie, far less of the action! action! action!-movie they tried to sell it, but goddamn Abrams doesn't have any sense for how big Space is and for distances to fly. Also for space empires/federations they all have a distinct lack of defending/patrolling ships or weapons platforms near their seat of power.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:When you specifically say 12:01 am on Thursday, though... I know but the mind just doesn't see to work that way for most. I can personally attest to at least three guests at one of our hotels missing their flights out because they didn't realize, for example, that 12:55 AM Thursday didn't mean late night on Thursday.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
Hasters posted:I know but the mind just doesn't see to work that way for most. I can personally attest to at least three guests at one of our hotels missing their flights out because they didn't realize, for example, that 12:55 AM Thursday didn't mean late night on Thursday. Well those people are loving retarded. When you sell a ticket for 12:01 am on Wednesday. THAT IS loving NOW. You don't punish people who aren't loving retards. You don't change the rules of society to accommodate people who are loving retarded. I'm pissed not that I got ready, and showed up, I'm pissed that we are catering to the loving retards. It's either that, or we have a loving retard who actually made this mistake. Either way I'm pissed.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Completely out of nowhere nerd-rant: The line where Spock accuses Khan of committing genocide on anyone who's inferior doesn't match up with these lines in Space Seed: SCOTT: There were no massacres under his rule. SPOCK: And as little freedom. MCCOY: No wars until he was attacked. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
Question: The film stated the date as 22-something. Khan's been frozen for 300 years. That means he was created in the 1950's? Is that right?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
qbert posted:Question: The film stated the date as 22-something. Khan's been frozen for 300 years. That means he was created in the 1950's? Is that right? Roughly 300 years. Khan was frozen in 1996, after the Eugenics Wars where he personally was absolute ruler of something like a quarter of Earth in Asia from about 1992. We don't like to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:17
|
|
|
qbert posted:Question: The film stated the date as 22-something. Khan's been frozen for 300 years. That means he was created in the 1950's? Is that right? I don't think they were talking that specifically. It's like when we talk about the 18th century we say "300 years ago"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Roughly 300 years. Khan was frozen in 1996, after the Eugenics Wars where he personally was absolute ruler of something like a quarter of Earth in Asia from about 1992. Yeah, not being a TOS fan, all that went completely over my head. I had forgotten how strictly the new movies adhered to TOS continuity up to the timeline split. Edit: I'm glad Khan allowed The Beastie Boys to exist and produce music during his reign. Edit 2: With a historical figure seemingly that important, Spock really should have recognized who that was as soon as he said his name. Wouldn't that be like asking Nimoy-Spock "Have you ever heard of a man named Napoleon?" qbert fucked around with this message at 09:32 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
I thought during seeing it that they'd finally built an engineering set, but apparently they just appropriated a real-world fusion research facility? At least they picked something more appropriate looking than a brewery this time.qbert posted:Yeah, not being a TOS fan, all that went completely over my head. I had forgotten how strictly the new movies adhered to TOS continuity up to the timeline split. You can spot a model of the Enterprise NX-01 in the Admiral's office. Everything pre-Kelvin is theoretically the same. that said, the 1996 date of the Eugenics wars is something that later shows have always kinda edged away from referencing too. It's just one of those things you stick your fingers in your ears and hum about MikeJF fucked around with this message at 09:28 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
qbert posted:Edit 2: With a historical figure seemingly that important, Spock really should have recognized who that was as soon as he said his name. Wouldn't that be like asking Nimoy-Spock "Have you ever heard of a man named Napoleon?" "Kahn? Oliver Kahn? The German goal keeper?" "Caan? James Caan, the actor?". Variations of Khan aren't really uncommon names.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
Decius posted:"Kahn? Oliver Kahn? The German goal keeper?" "Caan? James Caan, the actor?". Variations of Khan aren't really uncommon names. He also mentioned being a genetically engineered super-being created during a time of global warfare roughly 300 years prior. C'mon, Spock. You can put 2 and 2 together.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
Just saw this. It was much like the first one in being a fun, fanservicey action romp with enjoyable characters, but zero depth and ultimately most likely a bit forgettable. It helps that we had a much better villain this time round. Now what I really want is a new TV series combining the best elements of TNG and DS9 in a modern style, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Zapp Brannigan posted:I'm surprised no one mentioned this in the ripping apart of the plot: Spock objects to being saved over violating the prime directive, then gets Kirk demoted because of violating the prime directive. Isn't what he's doing in the volcano also a violation of the prime directive?: Non-interference in the development or evolution of a primitive species? Or do they explain that away with a one-liner?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:Pike mentions that being in the volcano at all was a violation of the Prime Directive, so yeah Spock should really have been objecting to the whole thing, instead of throwing together a cold fusion device to save them. Maybe it's just a case where Spock is willing to bend the rules (it's ok to save them if they don't see us), but it doesn't really jive with his characterisation. I saw it as rule lawyering by Pike. Yes, if you see it very strictly it might be against the rules to even save them, but it might be something that usually is handled more lenient and maybe even ordered by other Admirals/other branches of Starfleet (and it was done in TOS too without violating the Prime Directive). It's indirect influence by letting them develop without the catastrophic event instead of having the culture end. However being seen and thus influencing the development directly is very clearly against the rules. Lying in your report even more so.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Captain Hilarious posted:Completely out of nowhere nerd-rant: I do think it's much more interesting to have a benevolent superman taking over half the planet rather than a genocidal superman. The idea that some people actually prefer to live under a system could be a good plot point. irlZaphod posted:Pike mentions that being in the volcano at all was a violation of the Prime Directive, so yeah Spock should really have been objecting to the whole thing, instead of throwing together a cold fusion device to save them. Maybe it's just a case where Spock is willing to bend the rules (it's ok to save them if they don't see us), but it doesn't really jive with his characterisation. Is it just me or is the egotism of this sort of interpretation of the Prime Directive kind of mind boggling?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 14:56
|
|