Oof, I should have read back a couple pages before I posted, I really didn't mean to fan the flames of that argument.  It is concerning, yes, a very small part of a larger overall trend, but it didn't significantly hamper my enjoyment of the film. It's possible to enjoy something whilst simultaneously recognizing and even tearing something up for it's mistakes. Honestly, I think the casting choice of Bennedict Cumberbatch as Khan is most egrerious not because of the issue of race, but because he simply isn't a good fit for that role, and did an underwhelming job portraying him!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Dice Dingus posted:Oof, I should have read back a couple pages before I posted, I really didn't mean to fan the flames of that argument. Congrats, you haven an opinion about Cumberbatch even less popular than mine!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
Was that an android of some kind on the bridge of the Enterprise? Dude had a deep robot voice and blinking computerized poo poo in the back of his skull.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:you seem as dead-set on focusing on it as you are on ignoring the concept of social responsibility. You keep bringing up the phrase 'social responsibility', as if this means anything. A movie-maker's primary responsibility is to the audience they seek to entertain, and casting is a large part of that responsibility. Movie makers are under no obligation to cast a character the same way they did previously.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
Joining in the "saw an IMAX screening tonight crowd." I was pretty entertained, I guess. That doesn't really do justice to how I feel about Star Trek though. I mean, it was a cool action adventure space movie. But the more I think about it the more I feel like as a Star Trek fan, these movies are paying me the bare minimum of lip service and then just doing there own dumb, shooty, entertaining thing. That doesn't make the movie bad, but I don't think I'll ever be able to love it either. Now then, Star Trek nerd complaint incoming: I just had a long loooong conversation with some buddies over what the deal is with the eugenics wars in Abramstrek. They believe that, since by the movies own logic the timelines don't diverge until the Keldon gets blown up at the begging of 2009 Trek, that the eugenics wars definitely happened. I think Abrams doesn't give a poo poo about Star Trek as a continuity. I find it telling that not one single person in the entire movie commented on the fact that Khan was the notorious Khan Noonien Singh, warlord and ruler of Asia during the eugenics wars. I think nobody mentions it because nobody knows it because it doesn't happen because these new Star Trek movies don't respect my nerd history, dammit! ABRAMS!  Also, did anyone else get really hopeful halfway through the movie that they were just going to abandon existing Trek lore in a glorious move and make the rest of the movie the Kirk and Khan buddy adventures where they learn to work together and trust each other and end up as friends? I bet some test audiences thought that, since they had to include that loving scene where Leanord Nemoy shows up to explicitly spell out to the audience that "Khan is a bad guy." Also also, I think I might have actually got whiplash from how hard Spock's "KHAN!" pulled me out of the movie. I was actually quite touched by the radiation room scene and I was really into how they were playing with the stuff we know and then Quinto yells "KHAN!" and all I can think of is Shatners leering, angry face. I went from "Holy poo poo, I'm getting really immersed in this movie!" to "Oh right I am watch semi-remake of Star Trek" in like, 2 seconds. So yeah, in conclusion, it was okay. I could take it or leave it. Chewbacca fucked around with this message at 10:43 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
Nut Bunnies posted:I enjoyed the film, but the pacing was ridiculous at times. You could fit a [SCENE DELETED] slide into like 10+ places in there. Speaking of bombs, I see JJ incorporated his fetish for exploding heads in *this* film as well - even though the head exploded wasn't *by* a bomb this time.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Speaking of bombs, I see JJ incorporated his fetish for exploding heads in *this* film as well - even though the head exploded wasn't *by* a bomb this time. Kinda more a squished head. All I could think was, "No Sherlock, don't murder Robocop! There's no coming back from that!"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:You keep bringing up the phrase 'social responsibility', as if this means anything. A movie-maker's primary responsibility is to the audience they seek to entertain, and casting is a large part of that responsibility. Human beings are under a primary responsibility to treat each other with as much respect as they can afford in their circumstances. In this circumstance, the casting director(s) for this role chose to exclude a significant portion of the potential candidates with no comfortable justification. That's what social responsibility means, you tin-plated robot. PM me if you'd like an explanation for the strange sensation the humans call "love".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:PM me if you'd like an explanation for the strange sensation the humans call "love". Only of you are willing to recreate that scene from Ghost. I'll also go for the breaching scene from Free Willy of you are in full body paint of a killer whale. And covered in fish guts 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
So did JJ Abrams block out other ethnicities from applying for the role or have I missed something about TrekGate. AbramsGate. StarGate.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Chewbacca posted:
Did you, uh, miss the scene where they phoned Leonard Nimoy and he was all 'Oh god, Khan Noonien Singh. What an rear end in a top hat. Also, Nimoy's reaction to hearing the name Khan was a single spectacular second that out-acted the entire rest of the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Did you, uh, miss the scene where they phoned Leonard Nimoy and he was all 'Oh god, Khan Noonien Singh. What an rear end in a top hat. Yeah, I loved the tenor of "normally I'd be all about 'no future-altering advice', but in regards to this guy, just use your best judgement - preferably while shoving him out an airlock."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Did you, uh, miss the scene where they phoned Leonard Nimoy and he was all 'Oh god, Khan Noonien Singh. What an rear end in a top hat. Speaking of the second line, I kind of half-hope Nimoy wasn't told what was coming and just had to deal with it. Ridiculous thought, but even so I believe it to be true... 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
So, since McCoy was able to artificially synthesize Khan's super blood and it brought a dead man back to life, I'm assuming that in the year that passed the Federation devoted it's entire R&D budget to producing macro quantities of that magic serum so no human every has to deal with an illness or injury ever again. As a point of order, since this is the movie discussion, why are we spoilering everything? Are people really going to come into this thread to talk about a movie they haven't seen and freak out when the plot is ruined for them? I didn't see anything in the OP but given update 2 it's pretty obvious anyone reading it can figure out the plot twist.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
pentyne posted:So, since McCoy was able to artificially synthesize Khan's super blood and it brought a dead man back to life, I'm assuming that in the year that passed the Federation devoted it's entire R&D budget to producing macro quantities of that magic serum so no human every has to deal with an illness or injury ever again. Eh, it was able to bring Kirk back after a brief time when he was frozen in the interim. It's able to repair massive cellular damage. The thing is, it's actually not that far off what medical science already was in Star Trek anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
pentyne posted:So, since McCoy was able to artificially synthesize Khan's super blood and it brought a dead man back to life, I'm assuming that in the year that passed the Federation devoted it's entire R&D budget to producing macro quantities of that magic serum so no human every has to deal with an illness or injury ever again. Yeah, maybe. It's just a bit of courtesy really.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Eh, it was able to bring Kirk back after a brief time when he was frozen in the interim. It's able to repair massive cellular damage. The thing is, it's actually not that far off what medical science already was in Star Trek anyway. Yeah, except Kirk was dosed with enough 'science-grade' radiation to kill him within what appeared to be 10-15 minutes. That's well beyond 10000 rads, and even the guys who took duty in Chernobyl and inside K-19's reactor room lived like a week before their bodies simply disintegrated from within due to irreparable DNA damage. And yeah, I know "it's a movie," but sheesh.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
I had many problems with this movie, but the chiefest had to be I already saw a movie with "Star Trek" in the title that featured a main character sacrificing himself to save the crew and then magically being brought back to life. Twice.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Locutus of Bald posted:I had many problems with this movie, but the chiefest had to be I already saw a movie with "Star Trek" in the title that featured a main character sacrificing himself to save the crew and then magically being brought back to life. Twice. Yep. I felt it was laziness passed off as homage - "hey, the climax is already written for me, and everyone will *love* the reversal of a revered and climactic scene!" To say nothing of the fact that the resurrection of Spock wasn't originally planned, and the resurrection of Kirk was something that took 10 minutes of screen time. They could've at least had put in a scene where Spock had to 'prime' Kirk's formerly dead mind with a meld to un-mush his squash, thereby giving them the 'bond' that melds evidently give (and probably spawning a few thousand new-universe slash-fic stories). BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 12:29 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Maybe you old farts did, but this is the new younger, fresher, funkier generation. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, except Kirk was dosed with enough 'science-grade' radiation to kill him within what appeared to be 10-15 minutes. That's well beyond 10000 rads, and even the guys who took duty in Chernobyl and inside K-19's reactor room lived like a week before their bodies simply disintegrated from within due to irreparable DNA damage. And yeah, I know "it's a movie," but sheesh. Assuming that your Warp core has different and worse types of radiation (Space radiation! Tachyon radiation! Whatever) than a Soviet reactor, but one that Space-Hitler blood can cure better because maybe its radiation that only lasts for a few hours isn't that far of a leap.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
The best part of all of the page and half of teeth gnashing last night is Ricardo Montalban is about as non-white as Cameron Diaz.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Congrats, you haven an opinion about Cumberbatch even less popular than mine! He does? I thought Cumberbatch was awful. He plays his role as a robot most of the time, with the occasional bit where he is angry. Even on the Dreadnaught, he is a Terminator until he reaches the bridge. Shouldn't a master manipulator be trying to get Kirk to approve of killing the Admiral? I've only seen him previously in "Sherlock" and I wasn't impressed.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I think what we've learned is that this is not the place to argue about racism in Hollywood, as it is a deeply ingrained element of filmmaking that cannot be easily summarized in a single role or casting decision. Yes, a discussion on the inherent racism in Hollywood and liberal multiculturalism as portrayed in Star Trek certainly isn't appropriate to discuss in the Star Trek movie thread.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
So as someone who considers the 2009 movie a detestable rape of the Star Trek franchise, do you guys think I'd tolerate the sequel, or should I bury myself in my DS9 DVDs and stick my fingers in my ears and go la la la whenever anyone brings up the idea of going and seeing it?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
I think it would be best for all of us if you didn't watch it so we don't have to read your further bitching about it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
He's correct about this though:quote:it is a deeply ingrained element of filmmaking that cannot be easily summarized in a single role or casting decision. Overly complaining about one instance kind of misses the point. It's part of a broader discussion. This was pointed out, with the exact same people involved, way back when the casting was rumored. This whole discussion is going to by default spoil the movie via context for anyone who hasn't seen it and is just looking at this thread for broad opinions, btw.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Yea, I agree that it is a systemic issue, however I think it's asinine to say that "this isn't the place" for a part of that discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:So did JJ Abrams block out other ethnicities from applying for the role or have I missed something about TrekGate. AbramsGate. StarGate. He had a hispanic guy as his first choice, that guy dropped out, and Cumberbatch was his second choice. That's about it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Danger posted:Yea, I agree that it is a systemic issue, however I think it's asinine to say that "this isn't the place" for a part of that discussion. Isn't there an entire thread somewhere in Cine Discusso (or possibly TV IV) dedicated to this white-washing topic? That would be the place to take in-depth discussion of that particular topic. The Lord Bude posted:So as someone who considers the 2009 movie a detestable rape of the Star Trek franchise
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:So as someone who considers the 2009 movie a detestable rape of the Star Trek franchise, do you guys think I'd tolerate the sequel, or should I bury myself in my DS9 DVDs and stick my fingers in my ears and go la la la whenever anyone brings up the idea of going and seeing it? Don't see it; you will hate this film. VVVV -> yes, Khan was supposed to be a North Indian, possibly Sikh, according to Memory Alpha. The name "Singh" is of Indian origin. monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 15:46 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Did TOS every explicitly state that Khan was of Indian decent? That isn't a snarky question, it's just that I haven't seen Space Seed in a very very long time and do not remember. Also: I wish things had gone more this way: Cumberbatch isn't Khan, but is one of the Botany Bay cryo people, and all his actions are to free Khan, and continue their work. I would have enjoyed that more.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Haven't seen it yet, but is there a consensus on the 3D? Does it add much or not?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:Haven't seen it yet, but is there a consensus on the 3D? Does it add much or not? Depends on how 3d works for you, I guess. I stop 'seeing' 3D after like 5 minutes and it becomes no different than 2D unless something is flying directly at the screen, so very few 3D movies are "worth it" for me, and this being one of them that wasn't.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:Haven't seen it yet, but is there a consensus on the 3D? Does it add much or not? We saw it in IMAX 3D, and outside of the opening sequence and the credits... I really don't remember much 3D. I'm sure it had some, but it wasn't memorable - at least compared to Hugo and The Avengers. Put it this way: if I loved this film and was going to see it again, I wouldn't pay to see it in 3D. VVVV <--- sorry, I saw it in IMAX  Though the point stands for that format - Inception wowed me in IMAX so much so that I saw it in IMAX a second time. This film really didn't wow me in IMAX. Maybe the 3D vs 2D made a difference?
monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 16:15 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:We saw it in IMAX 3D, and outside of the opening sequence and the credits... I really don't remember much 3D. I'm sure it had some, but it wasn't memorable - at least compared to Hugo, The Avengers, and Inception. I hadn't seen the film in 3D, but if the trailer is any indicator it's worse than most good 3D I've seen and you've mentioned (wait, was Inception even in 3D?); the film was post converted, I think, so most of the elements in the 3D trailer were just a bunch of cardboard cutouts running back and forth at different depths like a pop-up book.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Did TOS every explicitly state that Khan was of Indian decent? That isn't a snarky question, it's just that I haven't seen Space Seed in a very very long time and do not remember. From Space Seed: MARLA: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Darko posted:He's correct about this though: The only reason this topic is a potential spoiler is because the producers cowardly dodged the whole issue by cloaking the character's true identity and hiding it behind the spoiler curtain. The Last Airbender taught Hollywood a valuable lesson about whitewashing: pull the ol' switcheroo next time, by the time anyone takes notice they'll be too gorged on tits n' 'splosions to give a gently caress. Worked like a charm.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Human beings are under a primary responsibility to treat each other with as much respect as they can afford in their circumstances. Yes, I suppose that's true in some high-concept way, but in a realistic, practical way? The makers of the film's responsibility was to get butts in the seats, and have them leave happy. BC's superior performance of the role made the latter possible, and (if memory serves) the first one as well.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Just back from seeing this. Thought it was a really good experience. Good things: Cumberbatch was very very good. So menacing. Quinto and Pine really have a good chemistry together. Effects were great and the action sequences were exciting especially the final fight between Spock and Khan and the shootout with the Klingons. The movie whizzed by - don't know exact length but it only felt like a 90 minute movie Not so good things: Knew Admiral Marcus was a bad guy simply from the casting. It kind of spoiled any surprise plot element. Speaking of spoiled plot elements, I would have preferred they had not revealed the superblood "reveal" til AFTER Kirk "died" - soon as Bones mentioned the blood did something to necrotic tissue I immediately knew Kirk was going to "die" because of the opening sequence. Leaving that til after Kirk "died" would have created so much more suspense. All in all I really enjoyed it and really hope we get a third film now that they have used the two films to cement the Kirk/Spock bond so we can have a big third film against the Borg/Klingons although in retrospect I would dearly love to see more Cumberbatch Having seen Iron Man 3 I noted another reference to long-range superweapons in a Hollywood movie - a clear reference to drone technology being used today. And much like Iron Man 3, the aggressor was someone cast aside then using acts of terror to masquerade a slightly different plot Questions for Trekkies Is the Khan/Cumberbatch character a new thing or is he from one of the series? I remember the famous "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN" thing from Shatner but that was a Klingon not some suped up superhuman Oh and I was initially concerned about Pegg having a larger role in the movie - I actually rather detest Simon Pegg - but he was tolerable. WastedJoker fucked around with this message at 16:48 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:46
|
|
