|
Why does Indiana Jones ever leave his house? He always ends up leading the Nazis to the thing he's trying to keep them from getting, and God always kills all the bad guys at the end anyway. And why do Jew-hating Nazis want to find a box full of the wrath of Yahweh, for gently caress's sake? And how do the Nazis have flying wings and MP-40s in 1936? Just making a long list of spergy nitpicks about how a film isn't perfectly consistent or "realistic" isn't interesting criticism and doesn't really prove anything except that you're a pedant, unless you can explain why anybody should care.
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok sure, but in this case the line is clear. Building a warship to attack the Klingons would be an act of offense. Protecting Earth better would be a strategy of defense. Why is building a big starship an act of offense? Let's go back to WW2. The French, who were certainly concerned about Germany attacking them, built up a sizable military as a defense: quote:http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/France/French-Army-1940.htm Each of those can be used for offense or defense. Or take the United States in the Pacific Theater. What did they have as their naval defenses alone in the Philippines? quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippines_%281942%29 Again, all can be used for offense as well. Admiral Marcus' ship is a perfectly valid defense mechanism. Sure, the Federation could have built some kind of Maginot Line in space, but we know how that worked out. quote:Kirk's sacrifice meant that he went from naively bragging about not losing anyone under his command, to being forced to accept that responsibility and loss including the loss of his own life for his crew. He grew from a cocky kid to a real Captain. Whether you guessed the twist from the ample foreshadowing is a different issue from your original objection to the supposed lack of character growth in the film. I don't think he grew into a real Captain at all; he was still reckless. I think we just disagree on this point. quote:If they hadn't had that tribble foreshadowing scene people would be complaining just as much that the ending came out of nowhere. No decision is safe from the nitpicking plot-hole spotting crowd, because that mindset is fundamentally against the enjoyment and relevance of fiction. Fiction will always be unrealistic and always have holes, because it is fiction. Fictional worlds are not realistic (they are not real) and will never be complete in every way. "Fiction will always have holes" does not give them carte blanche to not care about plot holes. Writers should make some kind of good faith effort to remove them. If the writers had given the script to, say, another screenwriter and asked them to take a look, they probably would have pointed out some of the major plot holes. Writers have a responsibility to correct those. I think in STID, they had a bunch of cool set-pieces in mind, and wrote some dialogue to connect them together without thinking about it (RLM makes this point as well.) That doesn't mean the writers had plot holes happen, it means they didn't give a poo poo. Lindelof did this all the time in Lost, though the "set-pieces" were dramatic moments more than action sequences. quote:The Federation is a fallible bureaucratic organization that can be subverted or corrupted, regardless of the values it claims to stand for. The crew is a family of sorts who are willing to give their lives for each other. At the beginning of the film Spock turns Kirk in for violating the Prime Directive. By the end of the film I doubt he would make the same choice. *Can* be subverted/corrupted doesn't mean it is. That goes for any organization, and having the philosophy of "well, they could be corrupt so I won't follow orders" is a good way to find yourself kicked out. In the case where Spock brings up the Prime Directive - frankly he should because the right thing to do is have the Federation review their policy and think about changing it, especially a major policy such as the PD which doesn't tie into corruption at all. quote:Spock struggles not simply to suppress his emotions, but to know when to use them to his advantage and when to bury them under cold "logic". True but how is his emotion at Khan during the fight on the flying car useful? quote:Ok, well we could all easily speculate on Khan's motives and plans from the information in the film. We just won't come up with the one true canon answer. No but there should be some sense that the writers cared about Khan's motivation. VVVV -> hoping the Klingons don't notice as a reason to invade their space is a pretty bad idea. monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 14:05 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
The movie says like five times if they stayed there much longer the Klingons would have found them eventually.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:VVVV -> hoping the Klingons don't notice as a reason to invade their space is a pretty bad idea. It's almost like the movie is going well out of its way to make a point about that, amongst other points. But fortunately as we all know, it's a Damen Lindelof script, and we've all just went around the table and everyone agreed that it's a dumb summer movie, so we can successfully and acceptably disengage from all form of thought. *pulls plug*
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Exactly. Lost didn't answer all the mysteries I wanted answered and I didn't understand Prometheus, so therefore anything done by Lindelof is a priori bad .
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:True but how is his emotion at Khan during the fight on the flying car useful? Khan pegged Spock as an unfeeling robot who couldn't muster the passion to prevail in combat. "How can you break an arm if you can't even break a rule?" Then Spock uses his rage to literally break Khan's arm in the fight. Pro tip: when in a fistfight with a genetically engineered homicidal tyrant, this is a desirable outcome. And you're accusing the filmmakers of intellectual laziness? I mean, you've got to make SOME effort to connect the dots. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 15:43 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
The wife and I saw this Saturday. She had basically zero exposure to Trek pre JJ's first film, watched it and loved it. Of course she loved this one and I thought it was great too. She asked what old diehards think of these new films and I half jokingly told her some Trek fans hate fun, and said that some people find the new films too flashy and shallow on some areas. But I don't think this film can be judged for being emotionally shallow, anyway. Yes it relies on a fast pace where old sci fi moved glacially at times but those film making days are over. I hope the 3rd film finds the Enterprise in deep space and we never see earth and this ending strongly suggested that so no worries there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
api call girl posted:No, Khan tells Kirk he put his people inside the torpedoes (somehow) so he could try to smuggle them out. This is a lie because his plan was never to smuggle them OUT. You cannot smuggle out munitions. You smuggle them onto the nearest newest available big and badass warship, which Khan does know about. Once Khan had to make his escape he does not know what exactly Marcus did with the missiles (a good assumption here is Marcus took them back out, killed them, and refueled the missile pods). That is, until he hears that the Enterprise is carrying all 72 of them. I'm getting confused now. I thought that each missile contained a body and fuel, since McCoy got his hand stuck in one and almost got blown up. I think I need to watch it again! pinkacidbootson fucked around with this message at 16:19 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
pinkacidbootson posted:I'm getting confused now. I thought that each missile contained a body and fuel, since McCoy got his hand stuck in one and almost got blown up. Each missile contains a "live" warhead and a body, but no fuel.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Orv posted:Just reboot the reboot with Picard. A reboot of the reboot is quite possible if this movie doesn't hit $500M worldwide. Paramount wanted it to do numbers similar to what Iron Man 3 or F&F 6 are doing and it's already performing below expectations. Hollywood has also gotten a lot less skittish about rebooting franchises even if not a lot of time has passed or even if said movie was profitable. However that will mean another Kirk movie. It will be one with zero convoluted ties to any other continuity. A complete remaining with only iconic setpieces remaining and fewer winks and nods to any of the old universe. Think BSG. As popular as Picard and the gang are with people younger than 35, they don't have the overall name recognition that Kirk's crew have.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
I wouldn't have bothered putting the same characters in and created an entirely new crew instead. If you make a good action movie people will want to see it anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Seems like Spock was right and Kirk was wrong. Letting Khan loose culminated with the huge spaceship crash at the end, probably killed a lot more people than there are Enterprise crew. (I'm guessing RLM or someone noticed this, but haven't checked yet.) Thematically this can work with the "saving your family" theme, but the film should have acknowledged that was a consequence instead of just celebrating Kirk's newfound greatness at the end. Also if they're going to go with ridged Klingons they should all be chunky TNG hairshirt cosplay dudes.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Riso posted:I wouldn't have bothered putting the same characters in and created an entirely new crew instead. I'd quite happily watch a film that was about the adventures of the USS Kelvin and Captain bald guy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Seems like Spock was right and Kirk was wrong. Letting Khan loose culminated with the huge spaceship crash at the end, probably killed a lot more people than there are Enterprise crew. (I'm guessing RLM or someone noticed this, but haven't checked yet.) Thematically this can work with the "saving your family" theme, but the film should have acknowledged that was a consequence instead of just celebrating Kirk's newfound greatness at the end. Yeah, when you put it that way...it would be the modern day equivalent of some military officers finding out Dick Cheney was building drones and trying to start a war with Iraq. Then to stop him they team up with Osama Bin Laden, who promptly crashes an aircraft carrier into San Francisco, killing thousands. But hey, we stopped a possible war, right?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Astroman posted:Yeah, when you put it that way...it would be the modern day equivalent of some military officers finding out Dick Cheney was building drones and trying to start a war with Iraq. Then to stop him they team up with Osama Bin Laden, who promptly crashes an aircraft carrier into San Francisco, killing thousands. But hey, we stopped a possible war, right? Also Dick Cheney is planning to launch the drones from literally the USS Enterprise and then blow it up.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
In your rush to be smartasses you've overlooked the fact that the admiral was also trying to start a galactic war that would have casualties way beyond a ship crashing. It wasn't just about saving the Enterprise, bigger issues were at stake.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:In your rush to be smartasses you've overlooked the fact that the admiral was also trying to start a galactic war that would have casualties way beyond a ship crashing. It wasn't just about saving the Enterprise, bigger issues were at stake. The bigger issues are swept aside in this narrative. Kirk, who already commits plenty of acts of war against the Klingons, was willing to surrender to said admiral and give him everything he wanted, "just spare my crew." And it's not like he's learned Khan is any less dangerous than when he invades Klingon territory in the first place. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Astroman posted:Yeah, when you put it that way...it would be the modern day equivalent of some military officers finding out Dick Cheney was building drones and trying to start a war with Iraq. Then to stop him they team up with Osama Bin Laden, who promptly crashes an aircraft carrier into San Francisco, killing thousands. But hey, we stopped a possible war, right? A war with the Soviet Union. Like all the contextual clues are that the Klingons are at least comparable to the Federation. This makes it a bit of a relic in the modern day "sole superpower" world but it can still work. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:49 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Kirk was willing to surrender to said admiral and give him everything he wanted, "just spare my crew." That was before he had the means to do anything else. Once Scotty cut the power the situation changed. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 17:49 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Kirk, who already commits plenty of acts of war against the Klingons, And as the movie painstakingly establishes, going to the Klingon homeworld to then kill a bunch of klingons in "self-defense" was a horrendously bad idea that runs counter to every one of humanity's then ideals. Not to mention good sense. But it's ok, GWB has to go kill the WMDs that killed the WTC and attempted to kill GHWB. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
If they go with Picard reboot then let's go ST:ANG (Star Trek: Action New Generation) for this new series. So much action and fast paced things being flung at you that they don't need warp, they all can run to their destination really loving hard wearing warp boots from 1 to 9 and transwarp where freaky stuff goes down. Jean Luc Picard: Clive Owen, "Diplomatic immunity? It's been revoked. BLAST 'EM TO HELL, ALL WEAPONS!" William Riker: Bradley Cooper, "Baby I just wanna live the smooth life but I got this responsibility an' poo poo. What up wid dat?" Data: CG Fulgore from Killer Instinct, "Can I feel? FEEL THIS, BITCHES!" *slice and dice* Troi: Megan Fox, "Just as useless as before." Worf: The Rock, "KAPLAH? I'mma gonna turn that sumbitch sideways and kaplah up yo candy rear end!" Dr. Crusher: Gina Carano, "They call me Dr. Crusher for a reason...I'mma crush you between my thighs!" LaForge: Idris Elba, "LaForge is a sex machine now, awww yeah. Where them holo-bitches at?" Wesley Crusher: Basically CG Snarf from Thundercats. First movie based on Naked Time.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
api call girl posted:And as the movie painstakingly establishes, going to the Klingon homeworld to then kill a bunch of klingons in "self-defense" was a horrendously bad idea that runs counter to every one of humanity's then ideals. And possibly accomplished the admiral's evil goals of instigating war, just in a way he didn't plan for. I think the admiral literally says words to that effect himself. If he doesn't and I'm misremembering, it's still just about as obvious as McCoy's tribble epiphany. It's really obvious that there is a space Cold War, the Klingons are the Soviets, and the admiral is like a crazier General Curtis LeMay who just wants to instigate a real war and get it over with. It's cribbed straight form the original series all the way through Star Trek VI.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A war with the Soviet Union. That they had already gone to great lengths to invite. See above edit to my post. The problem is the whole plot machine runs itself in circles and breaks down in the course of one-upping the last threat. This is not a minor plot hole. Like say, the dumbness of Marcus's war strategy. If he sees conflict with the Klingons as inevitable, stalling for time is a no-brainer move since he can keep building more gently caress-off warships.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This is not a minor plot hole. Like say, the dumbness of Marcus's war strategy. If he sees conflict with the Klingons as inevitable, stalling for time is a no-brainer move since he can keep building more gently caress-off warships. Have you seen Doctor Strangelove? Some people want a war to come. Hell, you can even argue it was part of his plan all along to "redeem" the Enterprise with a strike on the Klingon homeworld which is part of why he showed up so fast.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
api call girl posted:And as the movie painstakingly establishes, going to the Klingon homeworld to then kill a bunch of klingons in "self-defense" was a horrendously bad idea that runs counter to every one of humanity's then ideals. Not to mention good sense. No, it's painted as the right thing to do in order to capture Khan and put him on trial*, as opposed to using torpedo drones or whatever. *Or just freeze him again at the end, whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Kirk's mission into the Klingon homeworld to capture Khan (Or Harrison at that time) had delightful resonance with the US's mission into Pakistan to "capture" Osama Bin Laden. Was it an "Act of War"? Arguable these days.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:No, it's painted as the right thing to do in order to capture Khan and put him on trial*, as opposed to using torpedo drones or whatever. This is a really bizarre stance since the whole movie is about how Kirk isn't actually a good captain yet and develops over the course of the movie. Violating Klingon territory and getting into a gunfight instead of bombing it blindly was "better," but not actually "good," as the movie makes really obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Have you seen Doctor Strangelove? Some people want a war to come. Hell, you can even argue it was part of his plan all along to "redeem" the Enterprise with a strike on the Klingon homeworld which is part of why he showed up so fast. Dr. Strangelove is a good movie. Also a satire. I'm saying I didn't find the strategy that realistic combined with the other stuff the character says (if war is inevitable you don't need to do some "inside job" thing), but I'm just pointing to it as a minor plot hole, so okay. The major thing is just what every other critic's been saying, good pacing but less holding the plot and theme together than your average Star Wars prequel.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The major thing is just what every other critic's been saying, good pacing but less holding the plot and theme together than your average Star Wars prequel. And you haven't explained this at all. Pretty much everyone's motivation makes perfect sense. The Admiral wants to start a war, and make it look like the Klingons started a war, Khan wanted revenge on the death of his crew and then wanted his crew back and then wanted revenge for the death of his crew, and Kirk learns to not make terrible decisions as a commander.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Gatts posted:William Riker: Bradley Cooper, "Baby I just wanna live the smooth life but I got this responsibility an' poo poo. What up wid dat?"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:This is a really bizarre stance since the whole movie is about how Kirk isn't actually a good captain yet and develops over the course of the movie. Violating Klingon territory and getting into a gunfight instead of bombing it blindly was "better," but not actually "good," as the movie makes really obvious. Even Spock says it's the right thing to do. And Marcus hates that he does it. You say "really obvious" based on your takeaway, whereas I don't really think the movie (with its end crash) is subtle enough to even make that obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Kirk learns to not make terrible decisions as a commander. Much like the reasoning behind the plot points, we're going in circles, because I think the most terrible decision was letting Khan free on a dreadnought orbiting the planet he already bombed twice.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Much like the reasoning behind the plot points, we're going in circles, because I think the most terrible decision was letting Khan free on a dreadnought orbiting the planet he already bombed twice. Which if you noticed was foreshadowed by Spock's reaction to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Kirk is evolving throughout the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Much like the reasoning behind the plot points, we're going in circles, because I think the most terrible decision was letting Khan free on a dreadnought orbiting the planet he already bombed twice. If they keep Khan prisoner, they can't take over the Vengeance because only he has the insider knowledge necessary to do so. So the Vengeance reboots its systems and disintegrates them all, then the evil maniac admiral with all of Starfleet at his disposal starts a galactic war. If they let Khan loose, the worst case scenario is one evil maniac with one Starship who goes on to do...something...against all the rest of Starfleet. So tell us again where the "terrible" decision comes in? Taking a "bad" gamble is only bad if you have a better alternative.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:In your rush to be smartasses you've overlooked the fact that the admiral was also trying to start a galactic war that would have casualties way beyond a ship crashing. It wasn't just about saving the Enterprise, bigger issues were at stake. Yeah, but imagine if 8000 people were killed and the government told them: "It's OK. It was all to prevent a possible war. Nobody would say that was justified (except maybe hardcore needs of the many Vulcans). Basically, there are too many variables and no way to definitely say Marcus' plan would have worked, it would have started a war with the Klingons, and hundreds of thousands would have died. A lot could happen in between "A" and "B" which makes giving Khan the keys to a giant fuckoff warship which he uses to wreck a city a pretty horrible move, in retrospect. Basically if that happened in the real world, there's no way Kirk would be commanding anything other than the toilet in his prison cell for the rest of his life. I compare this a lot to the whole Benghazi mess, or the Boston Bombings. It's not enough nowadays, for us to serve justice against the actual perpetrators of crime or terror. We also have to deeply investigate things and find a way to blame Official People Who Could Have Prevented This and come up with a tree of logic which makes them somehow culpable, if not moreso than the people who committed the crimes. We are literally more interested in blaming Hilary Clinton or Obama than we are in finding the mob who killed Vile Rat and the rest. People are digging desperately to find some State Department or FBI person who had a file on the Boston Bombers and say "see, if ONLY they had acted, THEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS!" It's a culture of responsibility to the Nth degree, where we have to find everyone we can possibly blame and make them pay in a fanatical zero tolerance kind of thing. Now maybe things will change by the 23rd century and people will be more pragmatic, but if this had happened now, the shitstorm would be unreal. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie. I mean hell, almost any movie, if you imagined it happening IRL, would be outrageous and impossible. It's just interesting to look at it in a different way.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:If they keep Khan prisoner, they can't take over the Vengeance because only he has the insider knowledge necessary to do so. So the Vengeance reboots its systems and disintegrates them all, then the evil maniac admiral with all of Starfleet at his disposal starts a galactic war. In that case the film needs to poo poo or get off the pot about whether such a war is even that risky (since it's apparently a backburner concern when the plot needs it to be), or avoidable in the long run. quote:If they let Khan loose, the worst case scenario is one evil maniac with one Starship who goes on to do...something...against all the rest of Starfleet. Well they made sure to build him up as the evilest fucker ever with Nimoy's cameo. Also, earth was apparently undefended thanks to another plot hole you want us not to nitpick, so I don't know where you're getting the rest of Starfleet. computer parts posted:Which if you noticed was foreshadowed by Spock's reaction to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The film tries to sell this as a "Kirk is right and we need his bravado and Spock doesn't understand because  " moment.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The film tries to sell this as a "Kirk is right and we need his bravado and Spock doesn't understand because Yes and the outcome is upended. This is known as "irony".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:- How does fleet disposition make any sense? There aren't any fleets around Earth. There don't even appear to be any ships stationed around Earth, even though we know that the ships must have come there since the various Captains were there when Khan attacked SFHQ. Did these ships leave? If so, where did they go? If they were still around Earth, why didn't they do anything when the Enterprise and the dreadnaught were fighting within spitting distance? This doesn't matter. This is like asking why no other ships are dispatched to find out what happened to the Reliant or the Genesis Station or why only the Excelsior was dispatched to chase down the rogue Enterprise. quote:- How does the film make a commentary about using violence to fight terrorism when the resolution consists of violence against a terrorist? The film isn't taking a stance against violence. It is taking a stand against vengeance and urging us to seek justice instead. Clearly, some violence may be necessary in the service of justice. quote:- How does the film make a commentary about issues with drone warfare when Kirk's alternative to launching the equivalent of drone strikes is invading the space of another power, attempting to land on their planet, running from their border patrol, and later killing members of said border patrol? Do you think this is an acceptable alternative? See the previous answer. Apprehending and trying a terrorist is in service of justice as opposed to assassinating him from afar which is in service of revenge. The film is correct in pointing out that neither is without collateral repercussions. However, the death of a patrol crew is preferable to an all out war. And both options involve a violation of Klingon sovereignty. quote:- How does Kirk grow as a character? Spock? The rest of the cast? Do you think we are shown why the characters change (if so) or are we just told this? The entire movie is one big Kobayashi Maru that forges the crew into the people they must be so that they can finally go on the 5 year mission as the TOS crew we know and love. Kirk learns how to sacrifice. Spock learns how to control instead of suppress his emotions. We are shown all this through action and dialog; note that the film never "tells" you the Kobayashi Maru connection--it lets you figure that out from the nature of the challenges. quote:
Khan wants revenge and his crew. He's making his plan up as he goes because he isn't afforded the time to plan too far in advance. He flees into hiding on the Klingon homeworld because he think he'll be safe from repercussion there and will have time to formulate better plans. He may even have thought to offer his assistance to the Klingons. quote:- Why does Admiral Marcus need to keep his attempt at militarizing Starfleet a secret when Earth has recently been attacked and a key homeworld vaporized, not to mention significant parts of the fleet wiped out? Regardless of his ulterior motive to provoke war with the Klingons? Starfleet is not supposed to be a military organization. You see members of Starfleet itself tell each other this. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:In that case the film needs to poo poo or get off the pot about whether such a war is even that risky (since it's apparently a backburner concern when the plot needs it to be), or avoidable in the long run. What does this even mean? You're just engaging in a huge dodge and arguing in bad faith here. Again, what was the alternative to Kirk's decision in the situation he was presented with? If he didn't have a better alternative it wasn't "the most terrible decision" was it? The risk of war isn't really something the film is wishy-washy about, the CHARACTERS are just more preoccupied with what's right in front of their noses, like the constant threat of being blown up. computer parts posted:Yes and the outcome is upended. This is known as "irony". Plus this is the same Kirk who admits to Spock he doesn't know what he's doing. The whole film is tearing down his excessive cockiness.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Astroman posted:Yeah, but imagine if 8000 people were killed and the government told them: "It's OK. It was all to prevent a possible war. Nobody would say that was justified (except maybe hardcore needs of the many Vulcans). Basically, there are too many variables and no way to definitely say Marcus' plan would have worked, it would have started a war with the Klingons, and hundreds of thousands would have died. A lot could happen in between "A" and "B" which makes giving Khan the keys to a giant fuckoff warship which he uses to wreck a city a pretty horrible move, in retrospect. It also seems incredibly predictable that Khan will get those keys hands-down. And I mean predictable in the narrative. Since both Kirk and Spock see it coming, and really only Simon Pegg and Kirk stand in the way of Superkillguy. (But I guess if we are second-guessing Kirk deciding to launch a raid to catch the guy in Act I, we can now second guess him not telling Scotty "set to kill, seriously, bro.") I do think they could have explored a lot of the same territory a lot less clumsily, but it felt like they wanted to make an action movie that also makes a statement, but they didn't think out the statement much. Just slap it on at the end, have some pew-pew scenes, have a bunch of actors try way too hard to impersonate some other actors.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:00
|
|