|
Honestly I'm glad JJ is off Star Trek now. Hopefully he takes his writers with him over to Star Wars. This movie really had no idea what it wanted to do (it seems like you could say this for a lot of projects Damon Lindelof is a writer on - Lost, Prometheus, Cowboy vs Aliens, and now this).
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
After just now getting back from the movie, I found it still suffered from a lot of the issues I had with the 2009 remake, but it also had a lot of things going on for it, too, that made me at least try to overlook them. I think the largest problem with the film is the same as other films over the last few years that happen to be conveniently complex to the point of feeling convoluted and also have a lot of annoying little issues that feel more like forced plot holes. -Khan's augmented blood can bring back dead tribbles and heal sick little girls: We've got to get him because we don't have 72 other augments to thaw out and take some blood from. I know that we never know if this is a unique trait of Khan blood or if something all augments have, though. The film doesn't ask this question and I guess we're not supposed to either. -It's lucky Khan was able to extort someone connected to Section 31 who happened to have a sick kid. I would have sacrificed Khan's magical blood side plot with perhaps hint that Khan intentionally caused her to either have an unknown illness that he alone could provide an unknown cure for in order to force the guy's hand. Either that, or have a revelation after his surrender that Kirk and company have to be screened/treated for minor radiation exposure because that area of Kronos is unoccupied for a reason. Kirk, Spock and Uhura test positive for easily treated exposure, but Khan shows nothing after being there for much longer than them with less protection, leading to a eureka moment from Bones who can treat a transfusion as a hail mary. The tribble bit just sort of felt forced to give them an instant answer to a sudden problem. It felt like a lot of heart was missing from the film, it lacked a lot of the charm that the 2009 movie had. Also, I think the Carol Marcus character was totally wasted a bit. She didn't really add anything to the movie and having her OUT of the film might have forced the crew to start questioning things a bit more that she was there to lead them to. Despite all my complaints, I think its script wasn't as good as IM3, but I enjoyed the overall film a lot more than IM3.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Honestly I'm glad JJ is off Star Trek now. Hopefully he takes his writers with him over to Star Wars. This movie really had no idea what it wanted to do (it seems like you could say this for a lot of projects Damon Lindelof is a writer on - Lost, Prometheus, Cowboy vs Aliens, and now this). The whole time I was watching this movie, I was thinking "Well at least JJ's going to do a cooler, more stylish Star Wars than Lucas has done in the past two decades, even if it's not the best Star Wars."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
I disagree with the people criticising Cumberbatch's performance: I thought he was one of the best parts of the film. He does cold, calculating menace incredibly well and I absolutely loved his evil little Grinch smile that snuck out every once in a while.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and Robocop playing the classic conniving, morally compromised Star Trek admiral working with loving Section 31 sold it to me.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Cumberbatch was great, he didn't ruin this movie or bring it down. The only thing he was really lacking was the sense of a warm and cordial, yet elitist demeanor that Ricardo Montalban portrayed in the role that gave his cruelty a facade of enlightened civility. I think the weakest parts of the movie was the Spock/Uhura bit that I found was handled a lot better in the first film than this one. Given how much both films have replaced Bones with Uhura as part of the Big 3 of the crew, it would have probably benefited a lot to have kept the entire Carol Marcus character out to give us more time to focus on her and Spock's status. I even though Peter Weller came off really great as a gruff Admiral in almost every scene he was in up until the last half of the film. Also, could anyone with a sharper eye than mine spot anything in the Section 31 lab easter egg-wise? JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 08:14 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Also, could anyone with a sharper eye than mine spot anything in the Section 31 lab easter egg-wise? Nothing inside I recall, though having it be in the "Kelvin Memorial Archives" was a cute touch. Given the Kelvin died protecting the Federation, wouldn't put it past Section 31 to have picked that deliberately.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
Yeah, that was the only thing I noticed, too. If I get tempted to give it a rewatch, I'll keep my eyes peeled a little closer. I do admit I was really impressed with the script that it did sort of mention how Starfleet, after the destruction of Vulcan, became more aggressive in searching space to prepare for unknown threats, leading to the discovery of Khan sooner. I KNOW this can't be another of the Trek anime homages, and it'd be a real stretch if it were, but I found it sort of amusing in hindsight that having identical twin catgirls made me think of the Puma Sisters from Tank Police.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Whitewashing isn't about acting ability anymore than affirmative action is about testing/job ability, knock this poo poo off. Exactly. Before you use "casting the best actor for the role" as your argument for whitewashing...Realize that having a black or Asian or Latino or whatever play, say, Kirk or Spock or McCoy, was never even close to an option. There's absolutely no way that they would try to cast a non-white actor for Kirk; whereas they at best had an open casting call for Khan, although it seems more likely to me that they explicitly whitewashed the role and sought a white actor. This doesn't actually bother me so much since I actually liked Cumberbatch's Khan, and as others point out, Khan's race was never very explicit or even particularly characteristic. The gender issues in this movie, though...dayumn, it felt like an anachronistic George W. Bush biopic set in the future and produced in 1956! There are two female characters. Uhura doesn't do anything besides fawn over Spock and nag him for the first half of the movie; she eventually spends about 10 seconds as the tropic ridiculously-hot-girl-roundhouse-kicking-grown-men. The Admiral's daughter is the other female. She is immediately sexually harassed by Kirk (who does so nonchalantly, hitting on her as she enters the scene and making Quagmire-ish asides to Spock continually). They then insert a contrived and pointless scene to get her into her underwear as soon as possible. She has a few more lines later in the film but doesn't advance the plot at all. The film fails the Bechdel test spectacularly - the only two women in the film never interact or talk to each other at all! Anyway, wow - I have a decent tolerance for bro-ish entertainment, but this was pretty darned bad, to the point of making other parts of the movie less enjoyable for me. It's especially sad because sci-fi (and even Star Trek as a franchise; TNG is awesome in this respect for the '90s, and even better than much media today, such as the film currently in question) is a potentially great vehicle for dealing with sex and gender in an awesome way. The new Star Trek film fails really hard at this. shwinnebego fucked around with this message at 08:36 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
Was there anything after the credits?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
SyRauk posted:Was there anything after the credits? Nope. I stayed for the possibility that there might be (like I do with most movies) and there wasn't.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
The '09 film wasn't great with its female cast either (it only passed the Bechdel test with a scene of Kirk eavesdropping on two women in their underwear), but it's definitely disappointing to see a lack of improvement on that front. Star Trek's built a reputation for being classier than average about this kind of thing!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:It's especially sad because sci-fi (and even Star Trek as a franchise; TNG is awesome in this respect for the '90s, and even better than much media today, such as the film currently in question) is a potentially great vehicle for dealing with sex and gender in an awesome way. Except for Sub Rosa.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:although it seems more likely to me that they explicitly whitewashed the role and sought a white actor. Yes, that was clearly their intent
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
This was a pretty good sci-fi action movie, but I feel like a Star Trek story should explore a moral question and (hopefully) teach the viewer something about themselves in the context of a silly space parable. I have absolutely no loving idea what I was supposed to learn about myself from watching this, if anything. Liberty is good and fascism is bad! Oh, I never thought about it that way, JJ. Thanks buddy.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 09:50
|
|
|
I'm more intensely conflicted about this movie than any movie that I've seen in recent memory. So conflicted I'm planning to go see it again tomorrow so I can turn my critical highbeams all the way up. I will say that for the most part I liked it. Also that ironically I was more offended by Spock's body language during the Big Khan than I was the actual line. Rearing back like a werewolf and howling it to the heavens with bulging eyes and a god's eye camera angle? Even the original wasn't that silly. If he'd done the line resting his head against the safety glass and and curled up with grief, made it a dark, claustrophobic moment instead of a dumb explosive exultation I probably would have liked it. Maybe. Or not. Also, the Bechdel test is a silly metric, and Uhura didn't get to do very much because they toned down the ensemble element from the last film to focus even more on Kirk and Spock. Sulu, Bones and Chekov didn't exactly burn up the screen with awesome feats and brilliant character development either. Carol does more to service the story than any of them BY FAR. I was annoyed by the fact that the scene of Carol stripping down from the trailer was completely pointless and unnecessary after I was really hoping there would be a point to it, believe me, but saying this movie is a blemish on Star Trek's track record on gender is kind of absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
As terrible as the film was, I thought that all of the acting was spot on. It isn't Benedict Cumberbatch's fault the script demands he spend the middle third of the film delivering brooding monologues. It isn't Alice Eve's fault her character has literally no reason to exist. All the actors do well with what they were given. They were just given garbage. In summary, Damon Lindelof's writing talent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBhR4QcBtE
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
I don't venture very often into the CD sub-forum, and there's one thing I don't understand: Can someone please explain to me why all the movie talk in a thread that is supposed to talk about the movie is loving spoilered?  Rosebud is his childhood sled. Tarquinn fucked around with this message at 10:12 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
I love how when a film has multiple scriptwriters, people always arbitrarily pick and choose which one must have written the parts they liked/hated.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
Piano posted:This was a pretty good sci-fi action movie, but I feel like a Star Trek story should explore a moral question and (hopefully) teach the viewer something about themselves in the context of a silly space parable. I have absolutely no loving idea what I was supposed to learn about myself from watching this, if anything. Liberty is good and fascism is bad! Oh, I never thought about it that way, JJ. Thanks buddy. Losing loved ones to terrorism does not justify going on a personal mission for vengeance with the intent of killing, rather than capturing and taking to trial, the perpetrators. Following such an unlawful order, even if it comes from a position of authority, could lead you to miss the signs of growing fascism and militarism within your own supposed liberal utopia. Generally, if someone's got a bone to pick with you, even if they're insane murderers, there probably is something about their cause that makes sense - they've probably identified a genuine problem in your way of living. For example, that you're training killers and letting them loose on other's territory, and that those killers, with nothing to live for but war and revenge for their families, will return and fly your own airships into your towers. Even if you have some token minorities within your crew. And your precision weapons won't save you because there will always be collateral damage and death. I admit that's fairly superficial though. On the other hand, it's a movie about space ships shooting at each other and a guy with prosthetic ears and green blood climbing into volcanos. Sanguinia posted:I will say that for the most part I liked it. Also that ironically I was more offended by Spock's body language during the Big Khan than I was the actual line. Rearing back like a werewolf and howling it to the heavens with bulging eyes and a god's eye camera angle? Even the original wasn't that silly. If he'd done the line resting his head against the safety glass and and curled up with grief, made it a dark, claustrophobic moment instead of a dumb explosive exultation I probably would have liked it. Maybe. Or not.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
I've started to think Eve was supposed to be Nurse Chapel, originally, but they couldn't figure out how to make her a main character of the plot where her character wouldn't have been so easily able to fit in with the rest of the major bridge crew or work out any elements of her character's original Spock relationship in light of Uhura being there without making it come off as an inappropriate workplace crush. So, that's when they pulled out the Marcus angle and went with that. I sort of think there is a line of dialogue that sort of works a bit better if you think about it that way... The line where Marcus mentions her friend Chapel's failed relationship with Kirk and how she went off to do a space assignment to start over I think works better with continuity the other way around: If the line was coming from Chapel, discussing Marcus, it would let hardcore Trek fans say, "Wow, we can infer this is when Marcus left Kirk and decided not to tell him she was pregnant with his kid." All things considered, though, I REALLY enjoyed how the first 5 minutes of the film felt so much like the sort of fun, action-adventure I'd like to see from Trek sometimes while the rest of the film was all dark and violent. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 10:31 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:
Why is it a silly metric? quote:I was annoyed by the fact that the scene of Carol stripping down from the trailer was completely pointless and unnecessary after I was really hoping there would be a point to it, believe me, but saying this movie is a blemish on Star Trek's track record on gender is kind of absurd. Why is it absurd? For reasons like this, they really did a poo poo job in the gender department here. It's not absurd, it's calling a spade a spade.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
Piano posted:This was a pretty good sci-fi action movie, but I feel like a Star Trek story should explore a moral question and (hopefully) teach the viewer something about themselves in the context of a silly space parable. I have absolutely no loving idea what I was supposed to learn about myself from watching this, if anything. Liberty is good and fascism is bad! Oh, I never thought about it that way, JJ. Thanks buddy. There was... actually nothing about liberty or fascism in this film. Sacrificing personal freedoms in the context of terrorist attacks is something they could have looked at, but they didn't. It was all about how you deal with the people you hate for hurting your loved ones. In short it's about dealing with tragedies/terrorist attacks without losing your humanity. Regardless of how well you think the movie's done, or how heavy handed or simplistic you might think the message is, it was pretty drat socially relevant, and very Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
I think maybe another issue, too, is that both this film and the last film both featured a lot of the same themes: We had Spock losing his poo poo in both after losing people, we had Kirk being a reckless playboy jerk who breaks all the rules and wants to hunt down father(-figure) killers. If this had been a bit more introspective a film, I would have legitimately like to have seen Spock going through perhaps the final stages of psychological counseling near the start of the film, or being forced to undergo an eval after the events of the intro to let us see and hear in his own words what he cannot tell Kirk or Uhura. Is he reacting normal for a human, or is it an aberration as a Vulcan? By the same token, I would have liked to have seen Kirk mature a bit by now. Maybe in a third film, should it occur, we'll see him more along the lines of Kirk from TOS, confident enough and mature enough to act on his feelings but keeping them in check.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Except for Sub Rosa. I dunno, I always felt sorry for "Bev." Picard constantly feeling like he couldn't screw his best friend's widow despite constantly keeping her hanging, and her outranking most of the personnel on board (in addition to having the ability to render any single one of them unfit for service with naught but a filed letter) severely limited her sexual options to anything but the Holodeck. She needed to get some *somewhere* - it just came in the form of an clingy plasma-based entity that really knew how to "get inside" a woman.  I always saw Sub Rosa as the "Beverly finally gets some" episode. Sure, the plot brings out a lot of female stereotypes, but seeing one of my favorite characters from the show actually being able to *enjoy* herself for once, rather than be a stodgy killjoy doctor? Priceless. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:26 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:Why is it a silly metric? The Bechdel test is silly for a lot of reasons. For one thing, everyone seems to have a different opinion on what it actually is. Does the conversation have to have a time limit? Do the characters have to be named? Does it count if they talk about their children or the general state of their marriages or romantic lives if a man isn't specifically mentioned? Does it count if it's a total non-sequiter or a time filler sequence or does it have to be a substantive conversation to either plot or character development? Does "a man" in the third rule relate to a particular man or men in the generic/collective? Everyone has a different answer to these and a dozen other questions in terms of how successfully the test can measure the work, and that undermine the fundamental concept of it being a test. For another thing, the test itself is biased because it's implicitly presuming sexist content by defaulting a work to the "bad" side and demanding a series of checks to make it onto the "good" side. What if a film has only one character in it, or only one (or no) speaking role? What if it's a story set at an medieval monastery or a boy's boarding school or a pre-modern military training camp or any other setting where it would be unusual if not nonsensical for women to be around at all? What if it's a scifi movie about non-anthropomorphized robots or some kind of genderless race? Guess those films are irrevocably gender biased. I could go on but the point is I don't like the Bechdel test. And I think it's absurd to say this movie is particularly bad for Star Trek's record on Gender mainly because other than Carol stripping and Kirk's playboy attitude toward her and the space cats (which I fully agree were unfortunate, though this IS Kirk we're talking about, and if he wasn't perving on the ladies there would be riots I'm sure), the women are treated no differently than the men. Uhura's "nagging and moody pining" toward Spock is intentionally paralleled to Kirk's feelings of strained friendship and betrayal toward Spock. They're both upset with how he handled his near-death and their personal connection to him has been harmed as a result. Uhura and Carol don't do much to drive the story forward, but as I mentioned neither do Sulu, Chekov, or McCoy. Equality is the name of the game in Star Trek. Everyone who isn't Kirk and Spock are equally useless because the movie is not about them. It's about Kirk and Spock. I could name two dozen Star Trek episodes, the first five of which would all be from TNG, that are a thousand times worse in their fumbling attempt to be empowering and positively spotlighting for its female characters off the top of my head. I don't think a little mild neglect that's getting shared equally among all the ensemble parts and fewer direct gaffs than any random 40 minute episode out of over 700 qualifies as a major blemish. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 11:29 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:Why is it a silly metric? On the other hand, I think people are underappreciating Uhura in this movie. She's not used as a piece of meat (I know, that's hanging the bar low ...), she has two important, strong scenes (Klingon negotiations, and saving her Vulcan in Distress), she doesn't have to be rescued by the male protagonists in any of the scenes ... I think it's so important that she's not, as in so many other similar movies, treated as the hero's price. Kirk is NOT getting rewarded with sex from the highest-paid actress (or the second-highest paid ... errr, the other female speaking role) for beating the villain. She's number 4, after Kirk, Spock and Scotty, and number 4 is not equality, but she's been promoted compared to the source material.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:Exactly. Before you use "casting the best actor for the role" as your argument for whitewashing...Realize that having a black or Asian or Latino or whatever play, say, Kirk or Spock or McCoy, was never even close to an option. There's absolutely no way that they would try to cast a non-white actor for Kirk; whereas they at best had an open casting call for Khan, although it seems more likely to me that they explicitly whitewashed the role and sought a white actor. Not true. They had originally cast Benicio del Toro for the part, but he pulled out.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
I'm going to miss Pike, I thought he was a pretty good character in both movies.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I'm going to miss Pike, I thought he was a pretty good character in both movies. BEEP. However, it is too bad they did not at least have the chair in the background.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:BEEP. However, it is too bad they did not at least have the chair in the background. With the scene with him looking into Spocks eye's with tears coming out I actually felt really bad for him because in the other universe he spent his last days in a dream paradise, now he's just dead 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
LankyIndjun posted:Why is it a silly metric? Two women talk about their shoe shopping before being mutilated and horribly killed while the killer sneers something about "stupid, worthless bitches" and then spends the next 40 minutes of the movie brutally beating prostitutes. Yet, the movie passes the test perfectly fine. Another movie consists only of a long discussion between a man and a woman about life, worth, opportunity, sex and gender. Fails the Bechdel test. Decius fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Yeah, it's just another one of those "general ideas" that are taken as hard-fast rules for personality types that absolutely must categorize everything into exacts (which is why sites that should just be amusing examinations of trends, like tvtropes, become instead hard-fast "right and wrong ways to do things" by readers). The concept addresses very real trends, but it's not an exact rule.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Darko posted:Yeah, it's just another one of those "general ideas" that are taken as hard-fast rules for personality types that absolutely must categorize everything into exacts (which is why sites that should just be amusing examinations of trends, like tvtropes, become instead hard-fast "right and wrong ways to do things" by readers). The concept addresses very real trends, but it's not an exact rule. True, and that's why I have a problem with the Bechdel test being thrown in every drat TV discussion and movie. People should look at the movie itself. Think about how the movie portraits women. Different from men? Positively? Negatively? Examine it instead of applying some inflexible gauge over the whole thing and declare it worthless because it doesn't fit something said in a comic strip 30 years ago, something that's get carried around like some big icon. Instead of people thinking about what they just saw they dismiss it because it passes/doesn't pass the Bechdel test. Decius fucked around with this message at 15:04 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
Okay, I went and saw this last night; I think I can boil down the two main reactions here. Roommate's reaction: Non-Trekkie. Has only seen the '09 movie. Thought Into Darkness was excellent, fun, dizzying, funny, action-packed. Loved the fast pace that seems inherent in JJTrek. Came out of the movie feeling "gently caress YEAH STAR TREK". My reaction: Pathetic lifelong Trek nerd. Has sat alone in bedroom rewatching 700+ episodes repeatedly. Thought Into Darkness was a mildly entertaining action movie, with a few funny callbacks to say "HEY THIS IS STAR TREK REMEMBER?". Did not like the fast pace, humor mostly fell flat, one-dimensional characterization, disliked the bizarre roping in of Khan. Came out of movie thinking "Man, now I really just wanna watch The Undiscovered Country". ...And I'm not saying either opinion is right or wrong. For me, my opinion comes from being raised on what I thought Star Trek should be -- I'm used to it being the thoughtful, slow, theatrical sci-fi series that is was in the 90s (mostly). Hell, I even enjoyed Enterprise. So when here along comes a new direction in the franchise, I have a hard time parsing it as the same series. To me, it just looks like Transformers: The Star Trek. Now, compare that to someone who hasn't bathed themselves consistently in the series for 25 years. What they get is a very well made movie about people in space fighting off bad guys, and you know what? It's loving fun. Turn off brain, eat popcorn, and enjoy this roller-coaster ride of a summer blockbuster. I don't really have a point, I'm just shoving my semi-coherent thoughts on this together. It was just really interesting discussing Trek with someone who now has a completely different first impression on what the series "should be". I really enjoyed that Onion article back in '09 about the first JJTrek. Something along the lines of "Trekkies deride new movie as "fun" and "watchable"". It was a nice laugh-at-yourself moment for me, because there really is some truth in that. Trek is serious business, yo. HD DAD fucked around with this message at 16:22 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even though I did feel some of the scenes people are complaining about were ham-fisted. I feel like the more "serious" of a Trek fan someone is, the more sour feelings they had at these callbacks, while "casual" Trek fans were generally OK with them, and the regular non-fan people just glossed over them. One part I didn't quite catch early on: How did they explain that they found out Sherlock was the man behind the bombing? They said something about a confession but I didn't hear all of it. The only guy we (the audience) knew to have that knowledge was dead. Also some glossed over motivations that I am still a little confused about : 1: The bomber was willing to kill himself AND a lot of innocent people as the price to save his daughter? This seems pretty unlikely, but I'll admit that it wasn't truly important to the plot. 2: Was Robocop's plan to unleash Khan's crew on the Klingons? I'm still unclear where the admiral's plan stopped and Khan's began. It was perfectly plausible that Robocop could have planned the bombing and HQ attack in order to create the situation where Kirk fires torpedoes at the Klingons, getting a plausible reason to be the first strike in a war that he was certain was inevitable. This would mean that Khan was in on it up to that point, and only went rogue because Kirk gave him the unexpected opportunity to get his crew back on his own terms. On the other hand, it appeared that Khan was not expecting precisely 72 torpedoes, and when he heard that he suddenly changed his plans. If this were true, then why would Robocop have sent Kirk with *those* torpedoes in the first place? If he actually wanted to kill Khan, he would use normal ones. 3: I'm also surprised at how glossed-over the destruction of downtown San Francisco was. We see multiple skyscrapers destroyed in the middle of a busy afternoon, this is a colossal tragedy by any standard. 4: Why was Carol on the ship again? She snuck herself aboard with false orders? And this was clearly not something orchestrated by her father. How does she just get away with that? 5: Was the Klingon moon actually touching the planet? I assume the shot was just framed at an angle that made it appear very close, but it was so close that it was easy to interpret as an actual collision. It was kind of distracting actually, and if it was not intentional then I'm surprised it was left that way. And a not so spoilery question: Someone explain the Klingon head ridges thing to me again. I know Worf said "it isn't something we like to talk about", and I thought there was some semi-canonical explanation for the ridges between TOS time-frame and the later movies.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
FuSchnick posted:I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even though I did feel some of the scenes people are complaining about were ham-fisted. I feel like the more "serious" of a Trek fan someone is, the more sour feelings they had at these callbacks, while "casual" Trek fans were generally OK with them, and the regular non-fan people just glossed over them. I saw it as just 1)You can die or your daughter can. He is still a bad tin dog. 2)They had footage of the bombing and once they saw he was there they knew who it was. Remember the bombing was not important, getting the meeting together was. Khan thought that all his fellow crewmates were dead and that Admiral Robocop killed them. He sent them so he could wipe out all of them. Khan would be dead, his crewmates would be dead, and the war with the klingons would happen. 4) She wanted to know what the gently caress was up with the missiles. As the first one showed it is easy to sneak aboard a ship.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Wasn't there a confession? I remember the bomber sent a spacEmail to Admiral Marcus.John ai Marre posted:I really enjoyed that Onion article back in '09 about the first JJTrek. Something along the lines of "Trekkies deride new movie as "fun" and "watchable"". It was a nice laugh-at-yourself moment for me, because there really is some truth in that. Trek is serious business, yo. I've seen every Star Trek movie at least 3 times and most of the series, I strongly prefer DS9 to Voyager, and I loved Into Darkness.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I will say that for the most part I liked it. Also that ironically I was more offended by Spock's body language during the Big Khan than I was the actual line. Rearing back like a werewolf and howling it to the heavens with bulging eyes and a god's eye camera angle? Even the original wasn't that silly. If he'd done the line resting his head against the safety glass and and curled up with grief, made it a dark, claustrophobic moment instead of a dumb explosive exultation I probably would have liked it. Maybe. Or not. The original has a shot of the moon with the scream echoing through space. It is super super silly. It is also awesome and one of my all time favorite movie moments.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Decius posted:Two women talk about their shoe shopping before being mutilated and horribly killed while the killer sneers something about "stupid, worthless bitches" and then spends the next 40 minutes of the movie brutally beating prostitutes. Yet, the movie passes the test perfectly fine. That doesn't mean it's a silly metric though, the Bechdel test is a genuinely interesting way to consider gender in film. Imagine the test gender flipped, practically every single film features two men talking about a subject that's not a woman. But just because something passes the test or not doesn't automatically make it sexist. It's just a neat method of highlighting the huge gender divide in cinema.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:45
|
|
