|
Captain Hilarious posted:Completely out of nowhere nerd-rant: Do we really have to spoiler something that's, what, 40 years old though?
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Context of conversations provides a spoiler in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:To sperg: no massacres doesn't imply selective killings and torture. No wars until he was attacked does imply war. You understand that the very act of discussing what you are discussing reveals a plot point in the film, right?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
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. Is it really seen as an error that Star Trek doesn't represent the 20th century with historical accuracy?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Danger posted:Is it really seen as an error that Star Trek doesn't represent the 20th century with historical accuracy? Consider the historical accuracy we generally have of the late 1700s.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
How come half the country had the premier this morning and the other half gets out tomorrow morning?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
I just appreciated one more thing that reveals just how lazy the plot is: The jump a year forwards at the end. Why? Because that crisis with the Klingons, the war that the head of Starfleet is convinced is coming enough to set in motion all the events of the film, the threat that's realistic enough that everyone on the Enterprise thinks that full-scale war is just one bad incident away - turns out it's just not a big deal. It's a year later, nothing happened, nothing to see here, move along. The film doesn't even give Marcus the decency of being an antagonist who's faced with a genuine dilemma and picks the wrong option; he's just flat-out wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I just appreciated one more thing that reveals just how lazy the plot is: The jump a year forwards at the end. Why? Because that crisis with the Klingons, the war that the head of Starfleet is convinced is coming enough to set in motion all the events of the film, the threat that's realistic enough that everyone on the Enterprise thinks that full-scale war is just one bad incident away - turns out it's just not a big deal. It's a year later, nothing happened, nothing to see here, move along. The film doesn't even give Marcus the decency of being an antagonist who's faced with a genuine dilemma and picks the wrong option; he's just flat-out wrong. Good because that cloak and dagger Iraq War poo poo doesn't deserve any time of day in Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
The US was "on the brink of war" with the USSR for nearly 50 years. It's not really that near of a thing, it takes usually more than a few shots fired at a border to really spark a war, especially if one side doesn't really want war and the other is probably still building up its strength. Just like there were Generals and Admirals who saw a war with the USSR as inevitable and who say the same about China today, doesn't mean it will happen if you don't push it. Marcus was the equivalent of those Generals. Of course, there is the thing I find rather hilarious - the flagship of the Federation is parked maybe a million kilometers from Kronos and nobody cares about it, apparently there is no Klingon Home Fleet defending their central world... That's like parking a enemy aircraft carrier 3 miles outside of New York Harbor and nobody noticing. Decius fucked around with this message at 19:19 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Is it just me or is the egotism of this sort of interpretation of the Prime Directive kind of mind boggling? Space cowboys flying around playing god on a whim is an upsetting prospect.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Just came back from seeing this. Three word summary: Stupid action movie. Longer summary: Not a Star Trek movie, lots of explosions and plenty of plot holes and derpy actions. Damon Lindelof needs to stay away from Hollywood. Spoilers ho! #0: Opening sequence has lots of actions but doesn't make much sense. Spock doesn't want the primitives on the planet to see a Starship so he says he doesn't want to be rescued from the volcano. Yet the Enterprise is hiding in the ocean - did they think that nobody would notice them going into the water or leaving? Nobody apparently goes fishing on this planet? #1: After a terrorist attack on the Federation which everyone is concerned about, all the senior Admirals/Captains meet in a nice high-rise with a non-bulletproof window judging from all the carnage. Pike dies, but it's not even in Kirk's arms. There's a reason for this but still, it would have made more sense considering Kirk spends the rest of the movie pissed off that Pike is dead. #2: Khan teleports back to a planet in Klingon space - specifically the Klingon Homeworld - to escape the manhunt, yet he hasn't even killed his primary objective AND hasn't freed anyone. Perhaps he thinks that someone - either Admiral Marcus or a surviving Captain - will come after him, but that only works if they don't launch one of those secret torpedoes that has a big ol' explosive in it, otherwise he dies. Or forces the Federation into war but that doesn't directly help his objective to free the other supermen. And what chunk of the Klingon Homeworld is uninhabited? Why? How did Spock know? #3: Did the Klingons not notice a Federation spaceship within firing range of their homeworld for a few hours? Then TWO including a dreadnaught? Were they not concerned about this? #4: What was that uninhabited moon with a nice breathable atmosphere that Carol Marcus and McCoy beamed to anyway? The one within spitting distance of the Klingon homeworld - it must have been because that's where the Enterprise was stranded? #5: If the Enterprise was originally going to destroy a chunk of Qo'noS from the Neutral Zone, but then they kept on going anyway to the point where the planet is quite visible, then they could used regular torpedoes instead of the super secret ones. Why even bother with torpedoes that appear to be special purpose when you can use the regular ones and save the cool ones for when you need them? #6: Why bother putting the 72 frozen supermen into torpedoes anyway? To kill them? They played up these torpedoes as being awesome, the Enterprise wasn't going to launch all 72 of them. #7: Spock makes a big deal about Khan being able to manipulate Kirk if they talked, but doesn't say "hey, I'm a logical guy, let me talk to him." WTF? #8: The Enterprise and the Dreadnaught have a big ol' battle right over Earth (you can see it and it's quite large), and very close to the Moon (even larger.) Yet no Starfleet ship bothers to, you know, check out why two Federation ships are fighting, or listen in on the comms, or something. #9: They try to re-enact the 'Spock dies' scene from Star Trek II, only having the roles switched with Kirk dying and Spock being helpless, watching his friend die. But then they throw a big ol' action sequence in the middle of it. And Kirk/Spock didn't have the very long friendship like they did in the movie, so the emotional resonance isn't there. And you know that Kirk dying isn't a big deal because of Khan's miracle resurrection blood; we just saw it about ten minutes previously with McCoy experimenting with a Tribble. And Spock lets out a "Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!" that is weak compared to Shatner's. #10: Please stop destroying/almost destroying the Enterprise in every Star Trek movie. It's getting old. #11: WTF is it with the dedication to the 9/11 victims at the end? How did this movie connect in ANY way to 9/11? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
"This is not a [franchise] movie" always seems to precede some really well considered arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
I am a complete dry boring spergtastic neckbearded literalist and let me tell you about these plot holes.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Oh man, cmon, even where the plot wasn't full of holes it was desperately forced. The plot didn't hold together on many levels.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
What you're telling me is you need to be relentlessly mocked on every single level.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
I'm going to refute most of these really quickly so we can get back to discussing the real plot issues with the film. 0 - This isn't a plot hole. They could've come up with a million explanations to solve this but they didn't bring in up in the film because it's a moot point. Lack of explanation does not equal plot hole. 1 - They wanted him to die with Spock so Spock could have that whole mind meld thing and develop emotionally, which is his whole arc throughout the film. Not necessary for him to die with Kirk really. 2 - His primary objective is just to cause mayhem throughout Starfleet as revenge. Khan wasn't trying to free anyone, he thought the rest of his crew was already dead at that point. Retreating to plan a later attack is perfectly viable. Also he didn't know anyone traced where he had gone, it was only Scottie who happened to figure it out. 3 - Space is big. Like really, REALLY big. Like as big as starships are, they're specs of dust in a warehouse relative to the space around the Klingon homeworld. Not really a stretch that they remained undetected. 4 - Beats me, but she did say some explanation for it in the film. 5 - The Enterprise doesn't have regular torpedos. The only weapons on the ship are the special missiles. 6 - Khan hid them in the torpedos hoping to smuggle them away from Starfleet at a later date. That's the whole point of why he surrendered, he didn't want the Enterprise inadvertently killing his crew. 7 - Why would he offer to talk to Khan? His whole stance was that no one should talk to him. It's not like Khan manipulated anyone anyways. It was the Admiral showing up that caused poo poo to hit the fan. 8 - Maybe they did? It all happened in like 5 minutes. 9 - Yeah this was dumb. Not a plot hole though. 11 - Khan is a terrorist that literally flew a plane into a giant building at the end of the movie, presumably killing thousands. It was in-your-face symbolism, but there it is.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I just appreciated one more thing that reveals just how lazy the plot is: The jump a year forwards at the end. Why? Because that crisis with the Klingons, the war that the head of Starfleet is convinced is coming enough to set in motion all the events of the film, the threat that's realistic enough that everyone on the Enterprise thinks that full-scale war is just one bad incident away - turns out it's just not a big deal. It's a year later, nothing happened, nothing to see here, move along. The film doesn't even give Marcus the decency of being an antagonist who's faced with a genuine dilemma and picks the wrong option; he's just flat-out wrong. Wouldn't the Klingons demand that the Federation turn over the officer that invaded their territory and killed a bunch of their troops? I'm not sure how we would have handled it during the Cold War, but given the choice between all-out war and throwing some guy under the bus... qbert posted:I'm going to refute most of these really quickly so we can get back to discussing the real plot issues with the film. I'll answer a few. 3 - True, but I think we are already scanning for NEO - and the Enterprise would have been considered a Near Quo'nos Object. It was within visual range. 6 - Did he say why he hid people he wanted to save in weapons? 11 - Yes but I think he was trying to hit Starfleet HQ, right? I'm not sure if he did - the ship he was on said something about the aim not being accurate - but the difference between 9/11 and (say) the Cole or (to use another terrorist group) the Lebanon Marine Barracks wasn't just scale, but the targets being innocent civilians vs. military personnel. monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 22:37 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Movie owns, plain and simple. Best thing to come out of Star Trek in yeaaaaars. Rick Berman DESTROYED Star Trek so hard I feared it would never be good again, JJ Abrams has gone and saved it as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Wouldn't the Klingons demand that the Federation turn over the officer that invaded their territory and killed a bunch of their troops? I'm not sure how we would have handled it during the Cold War, but given the choice between all-out war and throwing some guy under the bus... I don't think that the Klingons are a cold war metaphor anymore. Which is stupid, because the half of the film that isn't a callback to Wrath is a callback to The Undiscovered Country. In this film the Klingons are just there to provide random antagonists for a meaningless action sequence. It all just goes to how soulless and contriver the plot is - Marcus tells us that the Federation is at the brink of war with the Klingons. But we're just told that and we aren't shown anything to really give us that impression because the only Klingons we see are the ones on their homeworld and it just doesn't seem true. That's problematic because it makes the guy who's the antagonist for 90% of the film (from when he announces to the audience that he's head of Section 31 to dying) someone who's motivations aren't actually real. Nero was at least mad with grief. This film just has the head of starfleet go insane for no reason at all. And start a conspiracy to change Starfleet despite the fact that he's already in charge and could just militarise in the open.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Not a Star Trek movie I agree Harrison's plan was pretty dumb though. He masterminded all his targets into this room, and then instead of using a weapon with more firepower than an UZI, or simply walking in there and breaking some guy's neck, he gives Kirk the opportunity for a (nice) long scene while ineffectively strafing the big shots with Stormtrooper accuracy and ridiculously bad 23rd century firepower. I too can't remember any sensible motive for fleeing to Kronos (Q'uonos?) of all places, too. It was neither safe, nor a good base of operations. monster on a stick posted:Wouldn't the Klingons demand that the Federation turn over the officer that invaded their territory and killed a bunch of their troops? I'm not sure how we would have handled it during the Cold War, but given the choice between all-out war and throwing some guy under the bus...
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I don't think that the Klingons are a cold war metaphor anymore. Which is stupid, because the half of the film that isn't a callback to Wrath is a callback to The Undiscovered Country. In this film the Klingons are just there to provide random antagonists for a meaningless action sequence. It all just goes to how soulless and contriver the plot is - Marcus tells us that the Federation is at the brink of war with the Klingons. But we're just told that and we aren't shown anything to really give us that impression because the only Klingons we see are the ones on their homeworld and it just doesn't seem true. That's problematic because it makes the guy who's the antagonist for 90% of the film (from when he announces to the audience that he's head of Section 31 to dying) someone who's motivations aren't actually real. Nero was at least mad with grief. This film just has the head of starfleet go insane for no reason at all. And start a conspiracy to change Starfleet despite the fact that he's already in charge and could just militarise in the open. Maybe the scriptwriters assumed everyone who wasn't a big Trek fan knew that the Klingons were the main enemy of the Federation, so they didn't need to show it. Sloppy but that is my assumption. Still even if there is no cold war, the Klingons of yore would not be happy with anyone intruding into their territory. By the way, it looked like some chunk of moon or space station or something had hit Quo'nos and perhaps explained why this part of the planet was uninhabited, has that been explained?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
I wouldn't call that sloppy. I would call that efficient. It is something everyone knows. Setting it up would be like setting up the Nazis in a WW2 flick.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I don't think that the Klingons are a cold war metaphor anymore. Which is stupid, because the half of the film that isn't a callback to Wrath is a callback to The Undiscovered Country. In this film the Klingons are just there to provide random antagonists for a meaningless action sequence. It all just goes to how soulless and contriver the plot is - Marcus tells us that the Federation is at the brink of war with the Klingons. But we're just told that and we aren't shown anything to really give us that impression because the only Klingons we see are the ones on their homeworld and it just doesn't seem true. That's problematic because it makes the guy who's the antagonist for 90% of the film (from when he announces to the audience that he's head of Section 31 to dying) someone who's motivations aren't actually real. Nero was at least mad with grief. This film just has the head of starfleet go insane for no reason at all. And start a conspiracy to change Starfleet despite the fact that he's already in charge and could just militarise in the open. Right, there are several things in the movie that rely on your knowledge of classic trek to give you any kind of connection to who they are or what they represent, and, yeah, I have that knowledge, which meant that the movie came off like it was shouting "REMEMBER THIS??!!?!" all the time. ( not helped by the fact that every time they did a different take on a classic scene it was worse than the original. McCoy had a torpedo surgery scene, but had it with the terrible actress who was there to randomly show her boobs to the camera, or the awful radiation death scene + KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN) I've softened on the movie with a couple of nights to reflect on it, and I think my initial visceral reaction to it was primarily because I was really stoked for it and it really fell far short of expectations. Even with my softened opinion I think the movie is desperately, ludicrously forced. Theres not a turn in the plot that feels natural, which is why you always have people chirping in to justify the bullshit decisions or mad logic of the characters. I honestly think they tried to squeeze too much into the movie. It's got a pretty madcap pace to it, and I think they've got so many little kinks in the plot they don't have time to set them up in a natural manner, which leads me to this comment... quote:Nemesis. I'm excitingly glad they started making real Star Trek movies in the TWOK sense again. The old Trek movies were not action movies. They were adventure movies, with the occasional action scene.In TWOK it's almost 50 minutes into the movie before the battle starts, and for all it's swashbuckling atmosphere, it's a slow burning film with a lot of time spent exploring our characters, with lots of time spent building up Khans mania and hubris, and a great cat and mouse battle of wits between the two. Whether or not you like the movie or not, it's a million miles from classic trek. Into darkness is a full on action movie. As I said, personally, I think it suffers from it's pace. In particular, Khan just seems like a super strong generic scary who is generically manipulative. Since theres no time to actually characterize anyone outside of Spock and Kirk (a bit) you just get characters spouting a handful of lines that are meant to define them, which doesn't go nearly far enough to justifying the choices they take. I don't think it needs to go back to the pace of old trek, but Jesus Christ, take a loving break. It made The Avengers seem measured.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:11 - Yes but I think he was trying to hit Starfleet HQ, right? I'm not sure if he did - the ship he was on said something about the aim not being accurate - but the difference between 9/11 and (say) the Cole or (to use another terrorist group) the Lebanon Marine Barracks wasn't just scale, but the targets being innocent civilians vs. military personnel. You were asking why the film had a 9/11 dedication whatsoever. The imagery is there, I didn't say it was very accurate or correctly analogous. If you want to argue that their 9/11 metaphor wasn't very good, by all means go ahead.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Whether or not you like the movie or not, it's a million miles from classic trek. Into darkness is a full on action movie. As I said, personally, I think it suffers from it's pace. In particular, Khan just seems like a super strong generic scary who is generically manipulative. Since theres no time to actually characterize anyone outside of Spock and Kirk (a bit) you just get characters spouting a handful of lines that are meant to define them, which doesn't go nearly far enough to justifying the choices they take. There are ten seconds in the entire film where Khan is Khan. That's when they're on the bridge of the Vengeance and he takes out Scotty, Kirk, breaks Carol's leg and then kills Marcus in an swift series of calculated actions. It's swift, powerful, brutal violence that's markedly different from the fight with the Klingons earlier and reveals Khan for the barely controlled seething mass of rage that he is. In that moment you see why everyone's scared of him. In that moment the line he has earlier about viciousness makes sense. In that moment you appreciate him as the villain. And then the moment is gone and the film is virtually over anyways. e: it's the things like that which irritate me because they show what the film could have been if it was less of a mess. The acting talent was all there. The fast pace worked with the 2009 film. The film has a character arch with Kirk and Spock that it wants to tell and by and large I think it does that. But everything about the story and script around that just fails utterly. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 00:30 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:
He was designing and building weapons for Section 31/Marcus, what else would he have hidden them in? Alchenar posted:This film just has the head of starfleet go insane for no reason at all. And start a conspiracy to change Starfleet despite the fact that he's already in charge and could just militarise in the open. He's not insane though. He's wrong about a lot of things: the inevitability of war with the Klingon Empire, his ability to control Khan and manipulate Kirk, clearly his grasp of security procedures in the face of terrorism is lacking... But that's because he is a fascist who believes that because he has the will to change Starfleet and go to war that things will go his way. It's clearly one of the themes of the film - Marcus would like to be a monster, but Khan is so much better at it - from planning terrorist attacks to killing him on the bridge. Marcus would like to be a hero, but he lacks the moral fortitude of Kirk and his crew - prepared to go to war, but not prepared to make personal sacrifices to avoid it. He's wrong, and ultimately weak, but not insane.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:He was designing and building weapons for Section 31/Marcus, what else would he have hidden them in? Something that wouldn't get shot out a torpedo tube? Weapons facilities have other things besides weapons - storage facilities for materials, laboratories, etc. I'm not sure where these torpedoes were stored, but since they were connected with the London research facility, they could have been there (and Admiral Marcus insinuates this.) Why blow it up? Also - presumably Admiral Marcus doesn't know that the capsules have frozen supermen in them. But he knows that there were 72 popsicles, and there are 72 torpedoes. Nobody did the math? And if Marcus did know the contents of the capsules, why give them to the Enterprise at all? Once Khan went rogue, they serve no use to force Khan to create weapons. Either get rid of them or try thawing out someone else to see if they know how to build weapons.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Also - presumably Admiral Marcus doesn't know that the capsules have frozen supermen in them. But he knows that there were 72 popsicles, and there are 72 torpedoes. Nobody did the math? And if Marcus did know the contents of the capsules, why give them to the Enterprise at all? Once Khan went rogue, they serve no use to force Khan to create weapons. Either get rid of them or try thawing out someone else to see if they know how to build weapons. I don't think most of your quibbles with the plot are important (the problems are more fundamental that finding chinks in the causation), but yeah the only way to resolve Khan and Marcus's plots is if Marcus doesn't know where the crew are. Which is mind boggling stupid because an obvious way to clean up the whole plot would have been to drop the Marcus antagonist line and just go with 'we woke Khan up to get him to build weapons, now he's escaped and loving poo poo up and we have no idea where his crew is (twist, they're hidden right under your nose)' and that's the starting point for an adventure. It also has hilarious knock on realisations, such as that if Kirk had just followed Marcus's plan and fired the torpedoes from range then nothing would have happened because their fuel cells are all missing. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 01:01 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Something that wouldn't get shot out a torpedo tube? Weapons facilities have other things besides weapons - storage facilities for materials, laboratories, etc. Pretty sure Khan was under some time constraints and having to dodge surveillance when he was trying to get his crew out, making an imperfect, unconventional solution perfectly understandable. He blew up the research facility as the opening strike in his war on Marcus/Starfleet that he began after he thought his crew were already dead. He did not know the torpedoes were still intact. Marcus gave the torpedoes to Kirk for potentially varying reasons: 1: He knew that they contained Khan's crew, and wanted to kill him in an ironic, theatrical way. He would do this because he learned about atrocity from Khan, who loves flashy demonstrations. 2: He didn't know they had Khan's crew in them, and merely believed they were long range, pinpoint accurate torpedoes developed for assassination by his pet monster. Also, if he thaws out another one then he'd have twice as many rogue tyrants fighting a covert war against him. Marcus isn't a complete idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Speaking of thawing out another one, the idea of that did rather make their desperation to take Khan alive at the end a bit forced. I think it would've been better if Spock had pulled back at the last moment without prompting from Uhura after taking Khan down and told him he was taking him in for trial. Have his morals from earlier in the film win out.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
I just realized 72 virgins 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:you just get characters spouting a handful of lines that are meant to define them, which doesn't go nearly far enough to justifying the choices they take. Not making any argument for or against or other points, but this is wrongheaded. The characters' decisions are what defines them. Action is characterization. We don't need some dialogue aforehand to justify it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I just realized 72 virgins Did they seriously include this poo poo in the movie? How? Context? Details?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Did they seriously include this poo poo in the movie? How? Context? Details? 72 missiles (containing 72 genetically engineered superpeople) being equated to 72 virgins, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I just realized 72 virgins To be fair, the count of 72 other survivors besides Khan comes from Space Seed.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:To be fair, the count of 72 other survivors besides Khan comes from Space Seed. Understood, but nobody said "hey, 72 is the same number of virgins that suicide bombers are supposed to get, maybe we should change it a little because nobody except hard-core Trek fans will care anyway"? VVVV Also: in "Space Seed" there were 84 pods, but only 72 survivors, including Khan. monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 04:17 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:And considering Khan plays the role of Bin-Laden... I'd love to hear an alternative explanation for why 72 was chosen, otherwise it's kind of offensive. Well, like I said... the count comes from The Original Series episode, and he wasn't a terrorist analogue back then. The SS Botany Bay launched with 85 sleepers, 73 still alive when the Enterprise (Section 31 in the new timeline) found them.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Speaking of thawing out another one, the idea of that did rather make their desperation to take Khan alive at the end a bit forced. There was a throwaway line early on that explained that. "We can't unthaw them, they're too primitive of devices for me to figure it out" basically. Yes, that was the logic. I felt this movie was highly stupid like the first, however, not as fun as the first to make up for it as much. Not bad, not good, just missed opportunities. My biggest disappointment was the movie forcing "it's like poetry it rhymes" stuff, instead of going the completely different route of realizing that the butterfly effect would cause so many changes that perhaps even a super egotistical dictator might not turn out as-bad when presented with the entire scope of the universe and not directly antagonized. It goes for this forced "major events in the universe must happen in similar, but not the same ways," thing, which just comes off as annoying, safe, fanservice instead of really having fun with the alternate universe idea. The first movie seemed like a possibility for new things - this felt like rehash, but slightly different, which is a bit of a let down.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Understood, but nobody said "hey, 72 is the same number of virgins that suicide bombers are supposed to get, maybe we should change it a little because nobody except hard-core Trek fans will care anyway"? I could have just been a randomly chosen number. I highly doubt anyone consciously made that choice.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Darko posted:There was a throwaway line early on that explained that. Wait, that can't be true. They unthaw one of them near the end of the movie to put Kirk on ice. Unless, that's just a genuine bona-fide plot hole we've found.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:21
|
|