|
fatherboxx posted:Klingons, who are here a substitute for every nation that was harmed by the devotees of "dicks, pussies and assholes" ideology, are presented as monsters. The what?
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Thom12255 posted:The video shows one thing very clearly, the plot does not make any sense and treats the audience like idiots who the writers expect will not be smart enough to see it. I think the video makes three points I definitely agree with: 1. JJ is a pretty good director (I have no problem with him doing Star Wars, on the basis of his Trek films), the movie is fast-paced, and the cast seems to work well together. 2. The characters have been boiled down to their most basic elements, to the point they are just cartoons. Kirk is a hot-head womanizer, Spock is a stoic vulcan who has to deal with emotions, Scotty is comic relief, Bones says "I'm a doctor not a..." etc. There's really no depth to them at all. 3. After introducing all the characters and the universe again in the 2009 movie, bringing in new fans who were maybe not familiar with Trek, they had a chance to create their own stories in the Trek universe. Instead, they are just plundering Trek's past for references and call-backs. Instead of creating their own iconic moments and expanding the mythology, they simply have Spock yell "KHAN!!!" so we can all nudge each other and say "Remember that?". The movie seems to have no interest in creating its own identity beyond pew-pew-pew.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The what? It's a reference to Team America. I hate that I know this. Phylodox fucked around with this message at 00:47 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Which on many levels is pretty true. I think that JJ is really weak when it comes to asserting what he thinks is a passable script, or is in fact really weak in the story department. There have been directors who have sat down with the writers or even new ones and totally re-wrote scripts to make them acceptable. If JJ said, "I don't think this story is acceptable, you need to re-do it so it doesn't suck" there is a good chance it might happen as he (like you said) saved the previous one, and only his directing ability managed to make this not look and play like a Sci-Fi original movie.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:3. After introducing all the characters and the universe again in the 2009 movie, bringing in new fans who were maybe not familiar with Trek, they had a chance to create their own stories in the Trek universe. Instead, they are just plundering Trek's past for references and call-backs. Instead of creating their own iconic moments and expanding the mythology, they simply have Spock yell "KHAN!!!" so we can all nudge each other and say "Remember that?". The movie seems to have no interest in creating its own identity beyond pew-pew-pew. b.) The movie uses the Khan moment in order to assert its own identity by being different from the original. Note that Kirk yells Khan after he threatens Kirk and Kirk is stuck on the planet. For Kirk, the rage was one of anger over what will happen and his inability to stop it (and, from what I could tell, was actually all part of his plan to make Khan think that he was in a worse situation than he really was). For Spock, it is a reaction to the loss of his friend, and the rage is one of demanding revenge. Using the same line highlights what's different about the films. Wrath of Khan Kirk is occupied with protecting those who are alive, and Into Darkness Spock wants revenge. The second is a much darker and less noble instinct, and this is a darker and less noble movie in general. It's about how Starfleet went wrong this time. No Wave fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Well, being sucked into a black hole sends you back in time, right? Knowing that, what happened to the Narada at the end of Star Trek? No telling how far back its wreckage was sent or what impact it might have had on whatever timelines. It's with the Prophets in their Celestial Temple.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
If anyone is interested in old series trek, the first episode of a new web series comes out tonight, midnight (not sure which time zone) at startrekcontinues.com I saw an advanced screening and it's so much like TOS that its almost comical. They basically rebuilt the original set. The acting is of similar quality as well.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
I watched this for the 2nd time and all I have to say is Chris Pine's goony unkempt neckline is so god drat distracting when you start looking for it. Are there no hair clippers in the future or what? This is a weird post. I am sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
nelson posted:If anyone is interested in old series trek, the first episode of a new web series comes out tonight, midnight (not sure which time zone) at startrekcontinues.com Fake-Kirk sounds like a fourteen year old kid trying to make sure his parents don't hear him talking. I don't know if I can stomach much of him.  I mean come on, he isn't that hard to do. Jim Carrey comes awfully drat close and he isn't even doing it seriously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H0_pK4gZ-0 MrBims fucked around with this message at 04:24 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Fake-Kirk sounds like a fourteen year old kid trying to make sure his parents don't hear him talking. I don't know if I can stomach much of him.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
nelson posted:Yeah I know what you mean. But he's also the guy who organized the entire thing :/ Was Gene Roddenberry ever captain of the Enterprise? Did Tom Clancy command the Red October? Was it JJ Abrams who opened the hatch?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Fake-Kirk sounds like a fourteen year old kid trying to make sure his parents don't hear him talking. I don't know if I can stomach much of him. Sulu: "Captain, I've been in space all this time and I haven't had one woman yet!" I know nobody knew (or did they?) but it never gets old.  I'll watch that fanfilm tomm. I did look at a few seconds of it and it seems it suffers from the same issues that New Voyages/Phase II does: they nail the sets, fx, sound, and music. But they acting just isn't there. Granted, they have the Son of Scotty, and these guys are all pros, unlike (many) of the actors on New Voyages. But I still feel they'd be far better served if they had done what long gone Exeter fanfilm guys did, and have NEW characters on a different ship in the TOS era instead of trying to duplicate TOS and the Enterprise crew. Granted, since JJ Trek came out it's not as much heresy as it was when New Voyages debuted to have other actors play the parts Shatner and the gang did. But you'd be less up for comparisons and more judged on your own acting merit if you had a new character. Still, if they can manage to turn out episodes on a more regular basis than Phase II they'll have that going for them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Too bad there wasn't a brief scene when ADM Marcus is briefing Kirk and Spock on Harrison, he didn't say, "He is one of ours, he surgically altered his appearance a month ago and disappeared, this is what he used to look like" and then BAM a picture of Space Seed Montalban. Then we can stop all this awesome THAT'S RACIST conversation. Or, even just have a throwaway line about how Sec 31 altered his appearance when they unfroze him so no history buffs would accidentally recognize him. And hell, that could have happened anyway. Second viewing speculation: Did Khan poison the little girl at the beginning so he would be able to coerce her Dad into blowing up the Section 31 offices in London?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
Now that the film has come out, it seems like there was a lot of room to build off the first film a bit more and have more of a story: Kirk and Company/Enterprise: The mission at the start of the film comes after what Kirk feels to be milk run missions being given to him by Starfleet. We get the sad truth of the matter. Starfleet has never thought Kirk to be a mature enough individual to be Captain, but left him in the position because of the really positive PR and popularity he brought with him after the Nero attack and have done all they can to give him missions that don't challenge him because they don't think he's up to it. While they HAVE had some standout missions in the last few years, they've been more the result of the Enterprise simply being in the right place, right time. Regardless of how well those unintended missions turned out, the events at the start of Into Darkness are the justification and popular reason Starfleet needs to bust him down a rank or two. We could extend this as Kirk balancing the need to prove himself as a competent captain who can take risks AND the sort of popular belief that he's too young and inexperienced and taking risks proves that. Have him meet seasoned captains of other vessels, both Starfleet and others, who treat him like a child and go so far as to ignore him. Post-Vulcan/Post-Nero Quadrant: Nero destroyed a planet and huge chunks of the Klingon and Starfleet fleets and crews. Maybe give us a hint that the future is diverging more and more as a result. Both powers are taking the opportunity to ramp up their production for space, but once smaller powers like the Cardassians and the Gorn are able to take advantage by pushing on the strained boundaries of both. The Klingons might be more apt to come to a negotiating table with the Federation if it meant they could focus their military on other parties giving them more troubles. Use the Klingons and/or Khan in a different way: Like I said earlier, use Cumberbatch as a younger Chang, or have Khan found by the Klingons first, who proceeds to wreck up their stuff on both sides with the support of a rogue Klingon faction to disrupt any improved relations between the powers. I know this is still a 'younger', 'more fratboyish' and 'more hothead' Kirk, but we had that in the first film. Kirk should still have some youthful enthusiasm to him, but all of his personality should be a bit more mature and savvy by now and getting away from his almost pathetic level of womanizing.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
GORDON posted:Too bad there wasn't a brief scene when ADM Marcus is briefing Kirk and Spock on Harrison, he didn't say, "He is one of ours, he surgically altered his appearance a month ago and disappeared, this is what he used to look like" and then BAM a picture of Space Seed Montalban. Then we can stop all this awesome THAT'S RACIST conversation. Or, even just have a throwaway line about how Sec 31 altered his appearance when they unfroze him so no history buffs would accidentally recognize him. And hell, that could have happened anyway. Yeah, only it wouldn't at all. Contorting a canon explanation doesn't actually fix the underlying issue. They could've said Nero brought back White Matter as well as Red Matter, but it still would've been an issue. Sorry if that bums you out, but whitewashing sucks and films shouldn't do it. I really don't know how you could read the posts discussing it and think that a handwavey "plastic surgery" explanation would actually fix things. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 08:03 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yeah, only it wouldn't at all. Contorting a canon explanation doesn't actually fix the underlying issue. They could've said Nero brought back White Matter as well as Red Matter, but it still would've been an issue. Sorry if that bums you out, but whitewashing sucks and films shouldn't do it. I really don't know how you could read the posts discussing it and think that a handwavey "plastic surgery" explanation would actually fix things. What's hilarious is making Cumberbatch's character literally anybody but Khan would have done nothing but improved the film.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
GORDON posted:Second viewing speculation: Did Khan poison the little girl at the beginning so he would be able to coerce her Dad into blowing up the Section 31 offices in London? No, the only reason that segment exists is to establish magic blood and it doesn't really make any sense. It's not worth trying to add imaginary depth to it. e: ^^ Cumberbatch could have just been a Starfleet intelligence officer who'd stumbled on Marcus's scheme, been burned, and gone too far in seeking revenge and trying to 'save' Starfleet Alchenar fucked around with this message at 09:47 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No, the only reason that segment exists is to establish magic blood and it doesn't really make any sense. It's not worth trying to add imaginary depth to it. I would have preferred that, also more fleshing out of Section-31 would have been great.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
There's this big reveal made out of Cumberbatch saying his name's Khan, but falls completely flat because a) nobody reacts to it, b) it serves no plot point, and c) it's absolutely useless without knowing the original movies/series.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I would have preferred that, also more fleshing out of Section-31 would have been great. The problem with Section 31 is that they're a subversion of the ideals of Star Trek. Their existence says to characters in Star Trek 'You know all those times you told aliens about your enlightened sensibilities, every time you didn't have to choose the lesser of two evils, the wantless utopia that you live in? It only exists because we run around in the background committing genocide on people who threaten it. The evil exists, we just go into the darkness so that you can sleep with a clean conscience every night'. It's a pretty devastating thing to be told that everything you've dedicated your life towards is predicated on a massively hypocritical lie and there's lots of interesting places to take that. But it only works for characters who have dedicated their lives to the ideals of Star Trek. In these films Kirk and Spock are just starting off. They haven't built up that pacifistic idealism yet, nor does it look like they should. Kirk ends this film talking about turning away from mindless vengeance, but as the Half in the Bag guys point out that's all anyone does in this film. Kirk and Spock are told that Section 31 exists and they shrug it off, because despite the fact that Marcus' plan is to militarise Starfleet, in JJ Abram's world it's already militarised. In the 2009 film it's described first as a peacekeeping force, in this film they spend a good amount of time walking about Earth in their Nazi uniforms. Section 31 isn't a subversion of anything in these films, and the only reason Kirk has at the end of the film for rejecting a militarisation of Starfleet is that the guy who was pushing for it tried to kill him.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with Section 31 is that they're a subversion of the ideals of Star Trek. Their existence says to characters in Star Trek 'You know all those times you told aliens about your enlightened sensibilities, every time you didn't have to choose the lesser of two evils, the wantless utopia that you live in? It only exists because we run around in the background committing genocide on people who threaten it. The evil exists, we just go into the darkness so that you can sleep with a clean conscience every night'. I think it's fair to assume that up through the start of the movie, Kirk had been pretty peaceful - he'd never lost any of his crew. So this distinction between 09 and 13 has a basis. Think of it like the Zero Dark Thirty that Glenn Greenwald will let you watch. I didn't sit through them, but apparently the credits included this line: quote:THIS FILM IS DEDICATED TO OUR POST-9/11 VETERANS No Wave fucked around with this message at 13:22 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Sorry if that bums you out, but whitewashing sucks and films shouldn't do it. I think a filmmaker should make the movie they want to make, and cast who they want to cast in a role. If they are getting pressured to cast a white guy in a role that previously went to a minority (or even vice versa really), then sure...that is bad. Studio interference almost always sucks. But if they chose the change for purely creative reasons (and the character's ethnicity isn't crucial to the character), then I don't view it as a problem.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
It's great that you don't think it's a problem. That doesn't change the fact that it is. It's bad enough that there are precious few strong, leading roles for non-Caucasian actors, but when you start taking the few roles that are and giving them to white people...yeah, I don't care if you are the director, that's a problem. Just look at The Last Airbender. Shameful.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
I just saw the movie, and while I enjoyed it for the most part it really felt like it was trying to be a Mass Effect movie, rather than a Star Trek movie. From Spock's volcano armor, to the fast pace of the action, the vehicle designs, the rifle designs, the city itself. Even the gunship seemed lifted straight from Mass Effect.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Devorum posted:I just saw the movie, and while I enjoyed it for the most part it really felt like it was trying to be a Mass Effect movie, rather than a Star Trek movie. From Spock's volcano armor, to the fast pace of the action, the vehicle designs, the rifle designs, the city itself. Even the gunship seemed lifted straight from Mass Effect. I dunno man, that volcano armor was straight out of TOS.  +  = 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:It's great that you don't think it's a problem. That doesn't change the fact that it is. It's bad enough that there are precious few strong, leading roles for non-Caucasian actors, but when you start taking the few roles that are and giving them to white people...yeah, I don't care if you are the director, that's a problem. Just look at The Last Airbender. Shameful. Then again, you have people saying "I wanted Khan to be hispanic because Khan has always been hispanic" without a trace of irony.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then again, you have people saying "I wanted Khan to be hispanic because Khan has always been hispanic" without a trace of irony. Yeah, that's problematic, too. For 1967 it was really progressive to have an Indian character who was strong and commanding. It was progressive to have cast a lead role as non-white (albeit Mexican rather than Indian). Keep in mind, this was less than a decade after Mickey Rooney played a horrible, horrible Asian stereotype in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Now, it seems, we're moving back towards Mr. Yunioshi rather than in the proper, more diverse and inclusive direction. At least they kept Khan as a strong character. I shouldn't have to say, "Well, yeah, but at least they didn't make Khan a subservient, bumbling Apu knock-off, am I right?"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Quite frankly, if a character is supposed to be from a certain region, I expect him to look like people in said region.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Riso posted:Quite frankly, if a character is supposed to be from a certain region, I expect him to look like people in said region. I agree, I just also believe that if you think a Hispanic man looks like an Indian man, you're kind of racist. Phylodox posted:Yeah, that's problematic, too. For 1967 it was really progressive to have an Indian character who was strong and commanding. It was progressive to have cast a lead role as non-white (albeit Mexican rather than Indian). Keep in mind, this was less than a decade after Mickey Rooney played a horrible, horrible Asian stereotype in Breakfast at Tiffany's. What people should have been doing is complaining that the studio didn't even *consider* an Indian person for the role. Instead, the general impression given is that most people would have been perfectly fine if Del Toro had taken the role instead of Cumberbatch.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Casting a Puerto Rican instead of a Mexican to play an Indian...would not have been a step forward by any means. That said, at least it wouldn't have been a step back. As it stands, Star Trek Into Darkness having Khan played by possibly the whitest guy I've ever seen in my life means that we're now somehow less progressive now than we were back in 1967. And having the character not be Khan is bad, too. Re-writing your movies to not include different ethnicities so you don't have to cast non-white people is horrible, too. And saying, "Well, having a brown person crash a starship into a major city is just perpetuating stereotypes that all brown people are terrorists" is bad, too. Rather than using the script as an excuse not to cast an Indian actor, change the script. Instead of having Khan spitefully crashing the Vengeance into Starfleet headquarters, have the ship already heading there while Khan desperately tries to stop it, thus inverting expectations and making him a noble, if flawed, villain. You can still have him fail to avert the disaster and get your big crash scene, after all.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:
Except that it makes more sense for Khan to be a willful terrorist. Remember, this is the guy who killed most of the upper command of Starfleet and bombed a military base because he thought his crew had been killed and as far as he knew the exact same thing had just happened. Changing that would make him an inconsistent character. And really, just in general Khan is basically the worst person you want to be portrayed by a minority because he's comically evil. Like, as a defining feature of his character he's literally a Neo-Nazi.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
And that is all thanks to the lovely writing presented to us in this movie.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Yeah, that's problematic, too. For 1967 it was really progressive to have an Indian character who was strong and commanding. It was progressive to have cast a lead role as non-white (albeit Mexican rather than Indian). Keep in mind, this was less than a decade after Mickey Rooney played a horrible, horrible Asian stereotype in Breakfast at Tiffany's. I showed WOK to non-Trek friends once and besides being bored to tears they also read Khan as being some kind of European. Whitewashing sucks but there's some problematic things about casting the character that go all the way back to 1967.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Riso posted:And that is all thanks to the lovely writing presented to us in this movie. No, that's literally who Khan is. You don't get to rule 1/4 of the globe without killing quite a few dudes (and the Superhuman stuff literally makes him an Übermensch).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Riso posted:And that is all thanks to the lovely writing presented to us in this movie. Seriously. Stop using lazy writing as an excuse. Until Into Darkness Khan was never presented as a terrorist. He was a monarch. A despot. A great military leader and tactician. Nothing in the movie necessitates that Khan be a mad bomber type terrorist. The basic themes and metaphors aren't dependent on it. The only reason it's needed is to make your 9/11 metaphor completely obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Riso posted:And that is all thanks to the lovely writing presented to us in this movie. How is this lovely writing? Khan takes things personally, we know this. Khan is a plausible and viable villain in this timeline. His character isn't twisted and contorted from what we know about him. Some of the writing was weak, I'll admit, but none of it took me out of the movie. The things that took me out of the movie were my preconceived notions. Wondering how Cumberbatch would compare to old Khan. Wondering how the Klingons were compared to Klingons I'd seen before. None of the references even took me out of the story. They were presented in a logical, flowing manner. The film is fast-paced and complicated because terrorist attacks and covert missions are fast-paced and complicated. Despite my constant over-analysis, I still enjoyed the film and it never lost me. I think Trek 09 suffered from that on first viewing for me, too. I had this preconceived notion about how Star Trek movies flowed. Leonard Nimoy didn't sound right. Once I watched it again, I realized it was because it was different. It didn't spend too long navel-gazing the way First Contact, The Final Frontier, Search for Spock, or Nemesis did. All those movies have heavy-handed messages (revenge, family/audacity, needs of the many, and nature vs nurture) and spent decent amounts of time discussing them. Into Darkness doesn't make that pretense. It takes a heavy-handed message, mentions almost in passing, then moves that plot into motion. Not that I don't think there's a place for that philosophical, steady pace. Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are both better for it. Of course, you've got a lot of people complaining that the movie had no plot or that it had too much plot. You're not going to please everyone. To me, my criticisms largely vanished once I realized that I was letting my preconceived fandom color my impressions.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Seriously. Stop using lazy writing as an excuse. Until Into Darkness Khan was never presented as a terrorist. He was a monarch. A despot. A great military leader and tactician. Nothing in the movie necessitates that Khan be a mad bomber type terrorist. The basic themes and metaphors aren't dependent on it. The only reason it's needed is to make your 9/11 metaphor completely obvious. You mean except the events of Wrath of Khan where he's planning on using a missile in a last-ditch effort to destroy the Enterprise? And plenty of rulers were terrorists. Mao is a pretty easy example but there are lots of others.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
I'm actually going to go against the usual line here. I didn't like Cumberbatch throughout the first half of the film. It felt like he was doing the "I'm Sherlock Lecter McHitler" thing so hard, I half expected him to say "You know nothing, Jon Snow." It was just "OK, it's Benedict Cumberbatch doing his Benedict Cumberbatch act," it's like how Jason Statham has always seemed to play essentially the same character. That said, he did improve as things went on. I also appreciated the scene where Khan is running from Spock. On the one hand you have this stylish, sexy man in a trenchcoat, artfully touselled and handsomely white. On the other hand you have this guy with fake ears, and a bowl haircut flopping in the breeze, power-striding in his dorky Star Trek uniform. I felt like that was a comment but I'm not sure if it was saying 'the dorks will always get you in the end' or if it was more akin to 'these ideals are stronger than Benedict Cumberbatch's sexily alienated trenchcoat'. And of course even Spock can't win without the black woman's help.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Casting a Puerto Rican instead of a Mexican to play an Indian...would not have been a step forward by any means. That said, at least it wouldn't have been a step back. As it stands, Star Trek Into Darkness having Khan played by possibly the whitest guy I've ever seen in my life means that we're now somehow less progressive now than we were back in 1967. If you are saying that the primary concern of a film today should be to cast minorities whenever possible, make that argument, and then praise movies that do so even if they are not critically praised. Because if that is what is most important in a film - more important than the actual film - then you should be spilling ink on that. You are saying that the value of a film is subordinate to the value of casting, so your favorite movies therefore must all be diverse. Instead we get this constant discussion where we introduce a framework that only applies to films that are critically acclaimed otherwise. Do you consider Crash one of the best films of the past decade? If not, why are you applying this framework so selectively? Is diversity of casting really more important than the film itself? Would your ranking of the ten best films of the past decade have to be diverse? Or is this a political concern that is external to the film itself, like Roman Polanski being a rapist? I'm using this example because the political concern is serious, but few people feel the need to interject that during every analysis of Rosemary's Baby - or, at the very least, they use it to inform the film rather than dismiss it. No Wave fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You mean except the events of Wrath of Khan where he's planning on using a missile in a last-ditch effort to destroy the Enterprise? Not sure what your point there is. He wants to kill Kirk, yeah. By that point it's just a personal vendetta, though. Does that make him a terrorist? No Wave posted:If you are saying that the primary concern of a film today should be to cast minorities whenever possible, make that argument, and then praise movies that do so even if they are not critically praised. What a weird argument to make. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. It's not a zero sum equation, here. This argument is like saying, "Racism? gently caress you, there are people dying in Afghanistan, stop wasting time on this bullshit and deal with real problems!!!" The topic is relevant to this film, regardless of the quality of the film itself, because it's a very visible, obvious example of a character being whitewashed. Very, extremely, egregiously whitewashed. Not sure what your problem with me pointing that out is, really. Phylodox fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 16:33
|
|