|
qbert posted: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. Don't ask me, then. But when they first find one, that line -is- said. I'm really starting to get tired of the "Joker Gambit" every villain in every tentpole movie does now. Can villains stop being captured on purpose and being put in little cages to talk to the heroes before doing their -real- plan for a few years or so? Batman, James Bond, this, I'm probably forgetting something. I was hoping so bad this would be a subversion and a "hey, the alternate timeline does actually change characters," but, nope, same old stuff.
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
^^^^ It would have been awesome if the timeline change, forced weapons research, and different encounter with Kirk caused Khan to be an extremist with a point rather than the big bad.jivjov posted:I could have just been a randomly chosen number. I highly doubt anyone consciously made that choice. Ordinarily I would agree, but considering the film draws a comparison between Khan and Bin-Laden, even ending the film with Khan blowing up a building with a spaceship and a 9/11 dedication message that they should have been a bit more careful. Seriously how did they not notice? monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 04:31 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:VVVV Also: in "Space Seed" there were 84 pods, but only 72 survivors, including Khan. Excluding Khan. I watched it like yesterday.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
I just got back from the 8pm showing and I had one question I can't rationalize out of, or didn't catch the explanation of during the movie: Why did the Enterprise start freefalling towards Earth at the particular moment it did? I know the whatchamajig was misaligned, but why the loss of all systems at that second? All the torpedos already hit. Also, did the music in this movie ever call back to themes in WoK? My friend said he heard some, but I didn't catch any/. Siroc fucked around with this message at 05:00 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
I am a huge defender of the '09 film, and have watched it several times. Aside from reference purposes, I don't really see myself watching this one again until the week before the next film is out. So many of the little things were great - TV and film references including the NX-01 on Marcus' desk, Section 31, "the Mudd incident", the Daystrom namedrop, the Nemesis-style seat belts, the fake-captain-to-fool-the-enemy gag from Star Trek V, McCoy operating on a torpedo like in Star Trek VI - but so many of the BIG things were just done so terribly that I don't understand the high praise the movie is getting, even discounting the "Trek nerd" complaints.  I had really high hopes.I got a pretty sweet glow-in-the-dark poster at the IMAX screening, though. With my TNG S3 Blu-ray discs for scale: 
Aatrek fucked around with this message at 05:28 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:I got a pretty sweet glow-in-the-dark poster at the IMAX screening, though. It's really nice. I'm told the IMAX here will be giving those away tonight, also. They look pretty rad. I don't think i've ever seen a horizontal aspect IMAX poster before.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:
It is pretty badass. I didn't know it was glow in the dark. You see the ships outline move in front of the sun when the lights are out. It's 3 feet by 1 foot exactly, by the way.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Saw it earlier this evening and I have no complaints. loving fantastic movie. Certainly could be nitpicked to death, but it was so much fun it feels like nitpicking it would be totally missing the point. The movie never slowed down, and the plot never required it to. Everything the movie did, even the callbacks and other cheesy bits, were just well done and fit their respective moments extremely well. The whole thing was way better than I expected, even as a fan of 09.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
I also really dislike the Carol Marcus character here. I'm all for reinterpretation, but she was unrecognizable.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
So I was with this movie riiiight until The reverseal of the ending of Wrath of Khan. I mean, I get it, it's a nice sentiment, especially with the new timeline and all, but Spock yelling Khan just killed the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:So I was with this movie riiiight until The reverseal of the ending of Wrath of Khan. I mean, I get it, it's a nice sentiment, especially with the new timeline and all, but Spock yelling Khan just killed the moment. The moment I heard that Harrison was actually Khan, I KNEW someone would scream it. My inner child is delighted. My sensibilities are offended.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:I also really dislike the Carol Marcus character here. I'm all for reinterpretation, but she was unrecognizable. She was there because tits. I'm not sure what she did except disarm the bomb and arm Kirk's penis.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
I think I saw this film with the entirety of Tumblr in the audience. Every little thing elicited a weird shriek from a chunk of people sitting behind me. Khan's reveal was one of them They would also clap for absolutly anything positive happening in the film. I enjoy spontaneous applause for a huge moment, but Spock jumping off a ship onto another ship then landing a mean punch isn't really one of those.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Darko posted:I'm really starting to get tired of the "Joker Gambit" every villain in every tentpole movie does now. Can villains stop being captured on purpose and being put in little cages to talk to the heroes before doing their -real- plan for a few years or so? Batman, James Bond, this, I'm probably forgetting something. This. I actually groaned when I realised it was going to be used _again_. And the major one you're forgetting is Loki in the Avengers.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Being captured wasn't actually part of a big plan, though? I think the examples aren't really comparable. Khan decided to surrender after he realized his crew was about to be dropped messily on his head, after that he kinda winged it. And it's not like the good guys were like "oh duh I guess he betrayed us, never saw that one coming" - both Spock AND Kirk were highly suspicious, careful and took measures against betrayal, it almost worked for Kirk and did work for Spock in the end. I loved the movie. Absolutely adore the trend of a lot of newer movies who have breakneck pacing, never stopping for a second in being really awesome. I feel like J.J. Abrams says "okay, you got 2 seconds of emotions, you got 2 seco - whoops, too many feelings, ACTION SCENE!" and am completely okay with it. Too much speed to really think about the plot, and actually, many of the "plot holes" that were brought up come from that kind of pacing. Things are left deliberately vague, unexplained or handwaved because the movie doesn't allow itself any time to dwell on details. I feel that many times, the director could have used a scene or two more to explain this or that and flesh out this character's motivation more, address this concern, but didn't do it because that would have made me bored for even a second - in comparison to the rest. That the movie doesn't stop for even a second to explain stuff that I frankly don't care about because explosions! Space lasers! People running! is completely okay with me and I had a dumb grin sooo often when watching.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
Saw it tonight. Great action movie, but not at all a Star Trek movie. Tons of plot holes, almost no characterization, ridiculous rip-offs from TWOK, and god-awful pacing. For fucks sake, JJ Abrams, can't we have one scene in the movie where people can catch their breath? I loved Star Trek 2009 even with all its faults, but there is just too much wrong with this movie to look the other way and just enjoy it at face value like you could with the first one. I was still entertained, but when I realized what was up about 20 minutes into the movie (and what I feared from the trailers) I had to kill any idea in my head I had that I was going to be watching a Trek movie and just enjoy the mindless action. Simply Simon posted:I loved the movie. Absolutely adore the trend of a lot of newer movies who have breakneck pacing, never stopping for a second in being really awesome.  If this is how the new Star Wars movies are going to be, I'm going to be seriously depressed. The Shep fucked around with this message at 07:01 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
So I just saw this pretty fresh and I don’t understand why everyone keeps saying the pacing is so breakneck, or even why that would be a good thing, since the movie stops like three or four times to deliver a bunch of exposition. This is especially frustrating as JJ is a very visual and kinetic direct but he breaks up tense sequences so people can stop and chat, and the movie goes full stop for no reason while this happens, its very frustrating. Secondly while the space action was fun if at times a little stupid, the physical action sequences on the ground were both very poorly edited and choreographed. This doesn't really spoil the movie but incase you want to go in blind. There is a shootout sequence where one of the characters, the focus of the scene, doesn't move for like two minutes. His opponents don’t really react in any other way than putting themselves directly in the line of fire and dying. There’s also a foot chase that is shot very flat and the editing just pulls the energy out of the sequence. Two characters just run in a straight line then jump onto a ship to punch each other, but the only real action prior to the punching is some running, and that’s it. Really the way two action sequences are edited make you lose track of where people are and what’s happening, with one sequence having people sporadically be inside a building then out and another showing you people facing to disparate planes in the same place at the same time. Aside from this I felt the acting was generally fine but the only character that had any sort of development just had it happen all at once. The film was also plagued by huge gaping plot holes that got harder to wave away as they stacked onto each other. It also relies on a lot of foreknowledge of Star Trek as well so much so that my friends were completely confused about the villain. Now with that out of the way this movie made me loving angry as well and I don’t understand why I seem to be the only person who upset. The villain in the movie is Khan, and he’s a loving white guy. I don’t care that he is a terrorist analogue, a poorly characterized one nonetheless, Khan is a Sikh Indian. He is an intelligent capable brown male and it is pathetic that he’s just white now. The movie even fails to explain who Khan is to the audience, that became my job after the showing. I cant even begin to describe the amount of contempt I feel at pretty much everyone who loves this movie because of this fact. This movie is being rated highly by most reviewers and everyone seems to have lost their drat minds. The filmmakers just decide to make Khan white distorting his ethnicity and killing the idea of Khan in the process. That idea being: brown people are just as good as white people, some can even be better. The last airbender got rightfully criticized and hosed over for its appalling insensitivity but this movie will make a billion loving dollars. gently caress this abhorrent piece of trash. I’m so happy I didn’t pay to see this.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
I loved the poo poo out of this loving gorgeous movie. It's wonderful and pretty and funny and thrilling. I've never been more excited for the next Star Wars movie and to paraphrase a fiend, Abrams had my curiosity but now he has my attention.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
Just saw it. Really liked it. Some of the posters above are absolutely right about some of the films drawbacks. I didn't really understand the reason behind a white Kahn compared to the ethnicity of the original. But, that particular actor did a fine job. I'm not so sure if the pacing in the movie was an issue so much with how short it was. There were a lot of relationships that should of been fleshed out and explained better if the movie had another 45min-1hour to work with Then again, probably all Trek fans are going to complain about pacing. I really liked the old school movies where every engagement was essentially a slow, meticulous submarine battle. However, this has always been an issue. Other people's interpretations of old Trek films find that kind of stuff 'boring'. I have to partially agree at times. There is definitely something lost by going with such a fast paced style, but it's not without any benefits either. It probably wouldn't be such an issue if it didn't take 4-5 years for each film to come out.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
MrMo posted:gently caress this abhorrent piece of trash. I’m so happy I didn’t pay to see this. You do realize that Khan is the bad guy, right? You're complaining that the maniacal, genocidal monster is white now? By your logic, can't I argue that the original WoK was racist because it cast a non-white in the role of evil madman?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
Man count me in as someone pretty disappointed. The first third was great, especially the opening sequence, but the whole last third was a hot mess. Oh yeah and the whitewashing thing sucked.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Just wanna remind everyone that Khan Noonien Singh was previously portrayed by a Mexican actor named Ricardo Montalban.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
qbert posted:You do realize that Khan is the bad guy, right? You're complaining that the maniacal, genocidal monster is white now? By your logic, can't I argue that the original WoK was racist because it cast a non-white in the role of evil madman? This post right here is the money shot. I don't understand the logic that Khan shows that being brown is as good as being white. Khan in his original interpretation shows that being brown causes you to kill people and be a genetically enhanced murderdouche.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
I'm just mainly irritated because they're ostensibly the same character.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Just wanna remind everyone that Khan Noonien Singh was previously portrayed by a Mexican actor named Ricardo Montalban. I'm guessing Javier Bardem was busy or uninterested. I also found the denouement lazy as gently caress and completely lacking of the same gravitas as Wrath of Khan. Putting in the exact same loving plot device used, then using something as dumb as Khan's blood as the 'instant cure for a dose of radiation so high it kills Kirk in less than fifteen minutes' is just the kind of poo poo I'd expect in Lost or Alias, not a 'Trek film. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 08:19 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
MrMo posted:Now with that out of the way this movie made me loving angry as well and I don’t understand why I seem to be the only person who upset. The villain in the movie is Khan, and he’s a loving white guy. I don’t care that he is a terrorist analogue, a poorly characterized one nonetheless, Khan is a Sikh Indian. He is an intelligent capable brown male and it is pathetic that he’s just white now. The movie even fails to explain who Khan is to the audience, that became my job after the showing. I cant even begin to describe the amount of contempt I feel at pretty much everyone who loves this movie because of this fact. This movie is being rated highly by most reviewers and everyone seems to have lost their drat minds. The filmmakers just decide to make Khan white distorting his ethnicity and killing the idea of Khan in the process. That idea being: brown people are just as good as white people, some can even be better. The last airbender got rightfully criticized and hosed over for its appalling insensitivity but this movie will make a billion loving dollars. Easy, most people who enjoyed it aside from this will tell you to stuff your silly white guilt and it doesn't really matter because DUBIOUS REASONS and you're probably the real racist for caring so much. Oh boy, I wish I'd remembered to post as soon as I stopped typing! I see the train of completely point-missing attacks that were shot down 40 pages ago has already rolled in.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm guessing Javier Bardem was busy or uninterested. Haha that would have been pretty interesting. Do you think people would have been just as obliviously angry?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I'm just mainly irritated because they're ostensibly the same character.  alternate universe 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
Neowyrm posted:alternate universe Not when Khan was from!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Haha that would have been pretty interesting. Do you think people would have been just as obliviously angry? Probably not, but this hypothetical sure isn't changing how many people are obliviously dismissive of whitewashing, which has nothing to do with whether the ethnic role being casted white is villainous or heroic!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Not when Khan was from! In the new storyline, they can erase the Eugenics Wars and just make it 'Khan and his Super-Baddie Crew.' scary ghost dog posted:Haha that would have been pretty interesting. Do you think people would have been just as obliviously angry? After Silva and Chigurh, I think Bardem as Khan would've been a better choice, and so did the writers at one point: http://themovieblog.com/2009/javier-bardem-as-khan-in-star-trek-2/
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Not when Khan was from! yeah i didn't edit in fingerquote emotes fast enough. The only problem that I have with them choosing a white actor for Khan is that it's not consistent with other adaptations of the character, which wouldn't be a problem if it was adapted from a book or something; the fact that that character has been shown previously ON SCREEN as a person of the darker persuasion and they just sort of get rid of that irks me. Though who's to say that Khan didn't decide to tan right before appearing in Space Seed and TWOK?  Edit: this is not to say that I think Benedict Cumberbatch is a bad actor or anything or that this movie is bad or anything; I've not seen it. This is merely preliminary commenting on the casting and its questionable-or-nonquestionableness. Neowyrm fucked around with this message at 08:27 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Probably not, but this hypothetical sure isn't changing how many people are obliviously dismissive of whitewashing, which has nothing to do with whether the ethnic role being casted white is villainous or heroic! Are you saying that it's okay to cast a Mexican man as an Indian character, but not an English man?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted: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. Except the dialogue in the movie is specifically to justify the bizarre or extreme choices the characters make and it plays out in an incredibly forced manner.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Are you saying that it's okay to cast a Mexican man as an Indian character, but not an English man? About as okay as casting a Korean man as a Japanese character!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
qbert posted:About as okay as casting a Korean man as a Japanese character! Yet I see no complaints here. You cannot pick and choose what you claim to be racist, guys! Be consistent!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Are you saying that it's okay to cast a Mexican man as an Indian character, but not an English man? It's not ideal, but far less of an offense than casting a white guy as an Indian character. Like I said, asked and answered long ago in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:It's not ideal, but far less of an offense than casting a white guy as an Indian character. Like I said, asked and answered long ago in this very thread. So there are degrees of racism? Care to define them?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:It's not ideal, but far less of an offense than casting a white guy as an Indian character. Like I said, asked and answered long ago in this very thread. I don't see how or why, the end result is the same; the same ethnic minority being shafted.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Yet I see no complaints here. You cannot pick and choose what you claim to be racist, guys! Be consistent! Just to be clear, I absolutely agree with this. My post was sarcastic, but you probably knew that.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:30
|
|