|
tractor fanatic posted:I don't really get the 9/11 scene that happens right at the end of the movie either. It seems so flippant and pointless, like they just wanted to cram some more explosions into the movie. Is the idea like, they've learned to not overreact or give in to vengeance so when space 9/11 happens, no one will care?
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
For everyone saying that this film has the same pacing issues as the 2009 film, even the 2009 film managed to stop for a moment in the middle and have the "Do you know why I married your mother?" scene. There's nothing remotely as powerful here.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Did anyone else find the opening scene a bit problematic, with its unironic primitive natives?
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
effectual posted:One callback that actually would've improved the movie (slightly) imo is the last line, just copy it from Kirk's earlier closing ones: "Second star to the right, straight on 'til morning". Isn't that more of a Peter Pan reference? In Undiscovered Country it was a pointed resistance to aging and closure, flying off into Neverland instead of being decomissioned. Danger fucked around with this message at 14:40 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:Did anyone else find the opening scene a bit problematic, with its unironic primitive natives? No. They weren't depicted in a positive or negative light, they weren't around long enough for that. They were just there for the Indiana Jones style opening, which I thought worked really well as a sequence all by itself and felt exactly like a re-imagined version of the Original Series would look like. It would perhaps have been more interesting if they'd saved a 20th Century equivalent species from the planet-destroying volcano, but that's TV series material.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Definitely don't regret watching it
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Trying to reduce what's wrong with the film down to the fewest number of words, and this is currently the winner. Yet, in a hilarious twist, this film is extremely popular with people who don't get the callbacks for the most part. Count Chocula posted:Did anyone else find the opening scene a bit problematic, with its unironic primitive natives? Why would having unironic primitive natives be problematic? DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 15:04 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Part of it made me wonder if Abrams used a rough print as his "audition tape" for Star Wars VII, and if so, good idea. Pretty sure he was given Star Wars without an audition. They essentially begged him to do it. Rudager posted:Looking back now, the whole "I've never lost a crew member while I was Captain thing" is pretty ridiculous considering I now remember at least 2 who died on Vulcan trying to stop the drill and a bunch more who got sucked out into space when they go head to head with Nero shortly after that. I haven't seen it in forever, but technically wasn't Pike was still Captain during that whole bit?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Yet, in a hilarious twist, this film is extremely popular with people who don't get the callbacks for the most part. Then the movie was competently made, except for people who want to hate it (or in other words, it's competently made). Happy Noodle Boy posted:
Yeah, I think he meant "the whole Nero thing doesn't count because 'huge fuckoff spaceship'. "
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Pike gave command to Spock before they even did the whole basejumping drill thing. I just rewatched '09 recently and remembered how fantastic it is.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
A theater by us did an 'Into Darkness' midnight that was preceded by ST09, and I think seeing the two back-to-back really upped my enjoyment of both. I obviously expected there to be far more positive responses, but then I remembered that Goons are horrible and the ST09 thread being a train wreck. This movie is fun, exciting, well acted and beautiful. Honestly, no one should care about its Trek-verisimilitude because 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Why would having unironic primitive natives be problematic?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Grew up with Trek, enjoyed this movie a lot. It wasn't perfect. The women's roles absolutely sucked - literally "bitchy girlfriend/everyone's mom" and "daddy issues," respectively. Yeesh. A good thing: the opening sequence was in five or ten minutes a better prime directive episode than anything TNG ever managed to do with that theme, with really meaningful use of special effects and powerful image-driven storytelling. If that's the kind of thing we can expect from a new series based in this universe, sign me up. Was the super contemporary club music playing in the bar scene with Scotty and his little friend something licensed? I liked it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:A good thing: the opening sequence was in five or ten minutes a better prime directive episode than anything TNG ever managed to do with that theme, with really meaningful use of special effects and powerful image-driven storytelling. If that's the kind of thing we can expect from a new series based in this universe, sign me up. Yeah honestly I enjoyed the fact that Kirk willfully broke the rules to save his friend AND he still faced consequences over them (even if they were short-lived). Also it's not contemporary music you heard, but classic dub 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Point me in the direction of this classic dub, friend, for I wish to educate myself
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Grew up with Trek, enjoyed this movie a lot. It wasn't perfect. The women's roles absolutely sucked - literally "bitchy girlfriend/everyone's mom" and "daddy issues," respectively. Yeesh. Except where Uhura stabs a Klingnon because negotiations she was leading didn't quite go the right way (yes, Kahn helped but still) and the fact that she saves the day in general because Spock was down and out when she beamed down and started shooting Kahn. Weak women!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Allowing them to be competent at their jobs is cool, but that doesn't change the fact that their personal motivations were entirely driven by the men in their lives.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Uhura is literally given one job in the entire film and it's almost a significant moment when it's working but then we need a pretty unimpressive action sequence so she has to fail.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Allowing them to be competent at their jobs is cool, but that doesn't change the fact that their personal motivations were entirely driven by the men in their lives. And how is Uhura's scene where she negotiates with the Klingons "driven by men"? She tells Kirk to keep it in his pants and let her handle the situation because she thinks Kirk's way would lead to them being killed. Alchenar posted:Uhura is literally given one job in the entire film and it's almost a significant moment when it's working but then we need a pretty unimpressive action sequence so she has to fail. I'm not saying they're feminist films, but at least "girl's only purpose in film is saving her love interest" is a step in the right direction from "girl's only purpose in film is being saved by and being love interest for male protagonist".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
This conversation, along with the casting conversation, are kind of difficult to have solely in the context of this film because those are problems with Hollywood in general and until you get a lot more women and minority directors and producers out there I don't know how you fix it. Also, just 2 Star Trek movies ago we had a character whose only purpose in the narrative was to get mind raped by Tom Hardy, so...yay for improvements I guess? 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Arguably, so was everyone else though? So Carol Marcus was in it over her father, but the JJ Abrams movies are all about Kirk's and Spock's father figures. Sounds like something a white male power holder would argue
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:She's not "given" the job, at least not in the sense that she's being given orders, in either of her two bigger scenes (Klingon negotiations, and deciding to get beamed down to shoot Khan). I meant 'given' in the sense that the script really has her do two things.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Just saw the movie. it was nice but nothing super special or anything. Question though:- isnt Scottie supposed to be dead? I couldve sworn we just saw him get his head crushed with a bloodcurling CRUNCH by khan, complete with girl screaming in terror. but in the very next scene he just got up and nothing happened?!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Just saw the movie. it was nice but nothing super special or anything. Admiral Marcus, not Scotty.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Just saw the movie. it was nice but nothing super special or anything. That is Robocop
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I meant 'given' in the sense that the script really has her do two things. That's true of any protagonist not named Kirk or Spock though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Just saw the movie. it was nice but nothing super special or anything. I think Admiral Banzai was the one being headcrunched in that bit. You mean on the bridge? fatherboxx posted:A new Plinkett video is worth waiting for I guess? I think there are a number of moments in the film that will fall under Plinkett's "you may not have noticed X, but your brain did" line. Whenever I'm watching a movie that looks great but for some reason I'm not feeling it, I think about whether my brain is catching something or not. ST '13 reminds me of when I've watched the new Doctor Who series, and we see Something Awesome and hear Awesome Music and it's obvious we are supposed to think "Wow This Is Awesome." monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's true of any protagonist not named Kirk or Spock though. I suppose so, and that's another thing that sucks about the script. There's nothing like the scene in 2009 when the crew is working together on the bridge to come up with a plan to intercept Nero.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I think Admiral Banzai was the one being headcrunched in that bit. You mean on the bridge? Wow, I must've zoned out during that bit, and got confused. Going to the cinema with a lot on my mind kinda ruined my concentration. Also, While I loved the special effects, I think they went overboard with the lens flares on the bridge.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I suppose so, and that's another thing that sucks about the script. There's nothing like the scene in 2009 when the crew is working together on the bridge to come up with a plan to intercept Nero. But that's entirely appropriate for WoK redux. The relationship between Kirk and Spock was definitely a major theme in that movie. I'll be disappointed if the crew never comes back into play, but I think the action revolving around them is fine for this film.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
I loved it and thought it was much better than the first one which I still liked. I've watched some of TOS, all of TNG and most of DSN along with most of the movies for context. I think some people are very emotional when it comes to the series and get understandably upset when they see changes they don't like. I'm not one of them but I guess I can see where they are coming from. I think that in the review Aatrek posted it's very telling when the guy explains that as a rule, you just don't redo that scene. The Wrath of Khan is apparently held up to some sort of divine status by certain people and when they see an attempted re-imagining, it's a huge hurdle to successfully jump over. I guess it's similar to people who are in love with the original Star Wars movies and then watch the prequels; although I don't personally view the severity of those two comparisons even in the same ballpark. People were saying they hated the Khan scream but I really liked it. It took me completely by surprise and turned what was a really sad scene into something really unsettling and almost disturbing. I do agree that the whole scene was certainly undercut a bit because you knew Kirk was not going to die. The acting in that scene was more than enough to compensate however. As for the plot holes that people keep mentioning in this thread, I don't really see them. I thought it was clear that they couldn't use the blood from anyone other than Khan because 1) they did not have the equipment to wake any of them without killing them and they probably couldn't access them without waking them and 2) it was not assured that the others' blood has the same properties. The whole interplanet transporter I figured was technology from the far future via Scotty and therefore only Section 31 had access to it. And why would the Admiral let Kirk use it when that would have undercut his entire plan? The only "plot hole" I don't have an answer to is at the start of the film. Why would they hide the Enterprise under the ocean and not just keep it in orbit? That way they would have had no problems transporting everyone back, especially Spock and the natives would have been none the wiser. I think it's fun to analyze the internal consistency of movies but I don't think any of these issues had a negative impact on the film.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
The funny thing is that in the context of The Wrath of Khan, there is absolutely no reason for Kirk to deliver the KHAAAAAN line with such gusto other than him being a ham, because 2 scenes later it turns out he and Spock were in on a little joke that the Enterprise was up and running sooner than Khan expected. He knew he wasn't going to be marooned inside the Genesis planet. Meanwhile in Into Darkness Spock has PLENTY of reason to just lose his grip on his emotional control - the pain and utter sadness he feels at Kirk's death washes over him and then he's just filled with an all-consuming rage at the man he feels is responsible. In that context the JJ Abrams scene is much, MUCH better and more impactful than the Nick Meyer scene.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:Did anyone else find the opening scene a bit problematic, with its unironic primitive natives? I liked it a lot because it did a great job setting up the tone of the film. It established what the crew of the enterprise is and what kind of movie Into Darkness was going to be. If you never saw the first movie, it's a good look into who the characters are and how they behave, so you basically don't need to see the first film at all now (but you totally should, it's really good).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
1st AD posted:The funny thing is that in the context of The Wrath of Khan, there is absolutely no reason for Kirk to deliver the KHAAAAAN line with such gusto other than him being a ham, because 2 scenes later it turns out he and Spock were in on a little joke that the Enterprise was up and running sooner than Khan expected. He knew he wasn't going to be marooned inside the Genesis planet.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Elim Garak posted:But that's entirely appropriate for WoK redux. The relationship between Kirk and Spock was definitely a major theme in that movie. I'll be disappointed if the crew never comes back into play, but I think the action revolving around them is fine for this film. I'd also make note of the scene where McCoy, Spock, and Kirk have the discussion in which Spock reveals Carol Marcus's real identity. Seriously, everyone (except Chekhov) were given a lot to do in this film. The lack of "ensemble" rings really hollow.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I too always thought that was Shatner acting as Kirk being bad at acting mad, not Shatner being bad at acting like a mad Kirk! It's pretty silly to point out the new film for moments that "take you out of the story because they're ridiculous" (something lots of people have said about this film) when all of the previous Star Trek movies are chock full of moments that are much much worse. Especially the ones that are universally loved by the hardcore fans.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
I Am A Robot posted:The only "plot hole" I don't have an answer to is at the start of the film. Why would they hide the Enterprise under the ocean and not just keep it in orbit? That way they would have had no problems transporting everyone back, especially Spock and the natives would have been none the wiser. I think it's fun to analyze the internal consistency of movies but I don't think any of these issues had a negative impact on the film. It was a quick mention, but they bring up the classic 'magnetic interference' thing that was making their transporters ineffective at distance. Just to play this out, though: My impression of screen time/doing stuff/plot development breakdown of the film for the Ent. crew. I get that Spock, Kirk and Uhura are the big three of this franchise, but Scotty, Bones, Sulu and Chekov felt more or less like they were only written in the film to give them specific plot-moving scenes and then be forgotten. White-haired bridge girl and LCD Head guy felt like they were more interesting to watch when they showed up on screen.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
I saw it for a second time this morning with my dad. The Khan!!! scream didn't seem as cheesy the second time around, and drat that scene with Kirk dying is great. Quinto delivered some fine acting there. I was amused that when Peter Weller showed up, my dad leaned over and tells me, "Oh hey, Buckaroo Banzai." Everyone appreciates a little Banzai.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Kinda lame that we have to still spoiler all this poo poo, because I specifically avoided this thread for 2 weeks to avoid spoilers. Who is reading this thread to have Star Trek Into Darkness discussion who hasn't seen the movie?  Anyway, when in Rome, I'm gonna go against the grain of the cool kids and say I liked it. I really did. But for me, the reason it worked so well is that it was exactly what I wanted. I wanted this. If you didn't, I can see how you would be upset. I only wish I had Archives so I could go back and pull my posts from like 2 years ago where I said something like "I really hope the next movie is Star Trek II:2 and they have Khan in it. But not the revenge driven, bitter Khan, but one Fresh Out the Tube like in Space Seed. But a 5 years younger, more inexperienced Kirk is meeting him." Cause right now, I'm feeling pretty  Oh yeah, bask in it. I even have been beating the drum for the past 2 years about how they should address Old Spock giving or not giving them spoilers. (For the record, I'm glad they addressed it, though I think it's kind of a dick move on Old Spock's part to not tell them of coming disasters like The Doomsday Machine, V'Ger, The Whale Probe, etc. Especially since the timeline has already been corrupted to all hell).I liked the fact that they had Khan, but specifically DID NOT try to make him the same as in TWOK. Because he is indeed a different man, younger, living under different circumstances, and with different motivations. Exactly the way a New Timeline Khan (or any character should be). I think a lot of the people whining that this is a lame "remake" of TWOK are, like a poor marksman, missing the target (and the point). Same with people whining that it's "bad filmmaking" because "even though I know who Khan is, the 'rest of the audience' doesn't and this is Uniformed Filmaking and therefor against what I learned in Cinema Theory blah blah  " So you know who Khan is, but you're worried that nobody else does? Cumberbatch is good as Khan. I think Del Torio would have been good too. I'll weigh in the whiteness debate simply to say that I am in general opposed to casting radically different looking people into iconic parts. Of any race. I'm still not totally sold on Pine as Kirk and Pegg as Scotty (though I think Quinto and Urban nail it). My spergrage will never cease over the fact that James Cromwell looks nothing like Glenn Corbitt. That said, I accept that this is just the way it is, and sometimes they just aren't gonna cast a similar looking person, even of the same race, in a role. On the wider issue of turning him white vs having someone hispanic or even Indian play the part (and I'm sure there are some Indian actors out there who would have killed it) I think it's more a practical concern: there is NO way they could have a dark skinned person play a terrorist who blows up buildings and crashes ships into them without causing even MORE backlash. Some of the same people in this very thread who decry Khan "being whitewashed" would probably be raging about "terrorist stereotypes" and how Hollywood only sees minorities as criminals. Sucks, but there you have it. I think there are some critics out there who would have been espousing the idea that the character of Khan was created in 2013 specifically to harm minorities, with the same logic that people used to say the lego Jabba's Palace toy was meant to represent the Hagia Sophia Mosque, ignoring the fact that it was meant to represent something from a 30 year old movie set on Tatooine and that the Hagia Sophia was architecturally designed as a Christian church. Basically, emotions always trump logic in popular debate and I think not casting an Indian, sadly, was the "safer" choice. My own opinion though is that they should have cast someone who either looked like a "Khan Noonian Singh" or at least like Montalban. But what's done is done, and in the role itself Cumberbatch does a fine job of selling me on Khan. I loved the fact that we got to see how genius and dangerous he is--that he could be unthawed hundreds of years later and design more advanced tech than the brightest minds of his future. It's a glimpse of how an unfettered Khan could be a real danger to the Federation, if he's not exiled, mad, or safely frozen. The callbacks were great too. "Put on a red shirt, Chekov" *GULP*, Captain Sulu, "Mudd incident last month." McCoy torpedo surgery. Etc etc. I could also swear there was a shuttle named "Takei" at one point. And can I say I LOVE the fact that the NX-01 and therefore Enterprise is actually officially canonized in JJ Trek? As well as Section 31? loving AWESOME! Once again, just as I noted with them going through the trouble of having Nero and Old Spock come in from the Original Timeline (thus preserving it as canon), JJ didn't have to do any of that. He was under no obligation to make a hit movie that keeps any sort of canon, so that he did is something I am grateful for. I also loved the scene with Scotty in the Space Bar for two reasons. One, it was a great callback to the one McCoy went to in III. Even moreso than the dive Kirk was at in the last movie. Two, Scotty's paisley butterfly shirt and the hairstyles of the women in there were SO 60s/70s that it was a great way to say, "see, 1960s and 70s style was totally, legitimately and actually back in style in the 2260s and 2270s when we saw all those women with beehive hairdoos in TOS and disco McCoy in TMP. I was bummed they killed off Pike though. And his rad sidburns.  Thematically using "The Undiscovered Country" as a touchstone was a good move too. It's more a remake of that movie than TWOK, which is appropriate, as again, Khan wouldn't hate Kirk in this timeline. But in the world of TOS, the cold war with the Klingons was always verging on hot. And since they've already managed to blow up Praxis and make large swaths of their planet uninhabitable (presumably experimenting with Nero's poo poo while they had the Narada), there's no "hey, we can help you in your time of need" for the Federation to make peace. It had to happen at that exact point in their relations to work, and now the Klingons are a major issue, and Marcus had logical reasons to do what he did. One spergy whine: they misspelled "Qo'noS." But, despite everyone's whinging that these movies are all SLAM BOOM ACTION!, they had Scotty say the magic words "aren't we supposed to be explorers?" It's a great "Science and Exploration Starfleet vs Military Starfleet" debate in the finest traditions of ST VI and TNG. Hell, I hope the next movie goes in a totally different direction and just has them out in some crazy far off part of the galaxy exploring and finding some new poo poo with no massive Federation/Earth threatening villain. Just weird wild space. Because another thing I've been saying for the past few years is while I wanted Khan in this movie, I would also have been happy with them ending a lot of the callbacks at that point. There's no need now to revisit every plot from TOS and the movies and remake TMP with V'Ger or even do poo poo with the Borg. Doing Khan gets that out of our system. Having Spock specifically come back to answer the question of "is Old Spock giving them spoilers?" by saying "Nope, but this ONE TIME I will" is a great way to put that entire question to bed. Now the Human Adventure can begin.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:It was a quick mention, but they bring up the classic 'magnetic interference' thing that was making their transporters ineffective at distance. Uh, Sulu as acting captain was loving awesome. Scotty is there for the humorous one liners as well as bones. Checkov did well, too. Wittle Chekov. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 19:51
|
|