|
Crappy Jack posted:You're telling me ANYBODY could remember the name of Alice Eve's character who didn't have it memorized due to her appearance in Shatner-era stuff? Overly Attached Starfleet Officer
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:You're telling me ANYBODY could remember the name of Alice Eve's character who didn't have it memorized due to her appearance in Shatner-era stuff? It's said multiple times throughout the movie and her real name ends up being a plot point, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:You're telling me ANYBODY could remember the name of Alice Eve's character who didn't have it memorized due to her appearance in Shatner-era stuff? Forgetting her first name is understandable (even though they said it multiple times). Forgetting her last means you just weren't paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Forgetting her first name is understandable (even though they said it multiple times). Forgetting her last means you just weren't paying attention. Seriously try this. Go up to anybody you know who has seen the movie and ask them what the name of Alice Eve's character was. Just try it. See how many people can pull it off. All most people recall is that Blonde Girl was the daughter of Robocop, but those two characters were really rather boring and just kind of there, it does have to be said. We know McCoy and Spock and Kirk because they're fleshed out characters and we like them and remember details about them because they're interesting. For most of the movie, those two characters are just Blonde Girl and Authority Guy who quickly turns into Bad Authority Guy who quickly turns into Dead Guy. Crappy Jack fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Kirk and Spock are iconic characters and have been for almost 50 years. Carol Marcus can't compare, not even the original Bibi Besch incarnation. I couldn't tell you the names of anyone from Knocked Up, which I have seen four times (twice more than STID), but that doesn't mean it's an inherently bad movie (the antifeminism of that movie is why it's bad).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
For a television example, someone posted an image that was "I asked my dad to name all these characters on Game of Thrones, this is what he called them." In a medium like film or television, people rely on identifiers other than names.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:For a television example, someone posted an image that was "I asked my dad to name all these characters on Game of Thrones, this is what he called them." Because that's the point. v Oh okay then. That's what I wanted to say, too. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So are the Marcuses underdeveloped, or just as developed as any other character? So, this is the thing I'm talking about : http://imgur.com/gallery/11bIw (spoilers for Game of Thrones) My point was that even fully developed characters are susceptible to getting nicknamed, because people internalize the identifying details that make sense for them. The Marcuses may very well be underdeveloped, but "people can't remember their names" isn't a great argument for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
Little confused about Khan in the new movie. I couldn't really figure out his motivations. Did it fly over my head or was it not really mentioned? Should I watch the original? Basically I guessed that he was one of the following: 1) He is a space psycho. He is totally insane. Probably as a result of his genetic modification loving with his brain. 2) He is a literal space Nazi. He was created by eugenics and wants to destroy all "inferior races" by using his superior military skills and create an "empire". Am I wrong with those assumptions? Hard to tell which of those apply to him. I really wanted to see a member of his crew. If the crew had the same mindset as Khan it might point to option #2. Unless of course all space eugenics end up making you crazy. I really should watch the original I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Little confused about Khan in the new movie. I couldn't really figure out his motivations. Did it fly over my head or was it not really mentioned? Should I watch the original? It's 2) with a healthy dose of "but he loves his other space-Nazi companions and he'll do anything to get them back".
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Do we know anything about his motivations outside of wanting his bros back and wanting to punish Starfleet for loving with him? Especially Admiral Marcus. I guess by how he betrays Kirk and tries to destroy the Enterprise that his plan was to go on a rampage with a fully functional USS Vengeance (loool) and from that you can assume he's a "space nazi" but I don't know. It was so focused on the "Admiral Marcus is behind everything, what a dick" twist that Khan's plans beyond killing everyone on screen were not mentioned. I think it would have worked better if Khan became a true anti-hero from when he confides in Kirk about Marcus. No lovely betrayal just Kirk and Khan against Marcus. But they wanted their radiation death scene and the whole mystical "universe trying to course correct" poo poo that meant Khan had to be the bad guy and kill Kirk or Spock. Waste of a character and waste of a story. But I knew this was going to happen the moment they put Khan in the film just because it was the second one. Yeah guys you have a loving blank slate. Can we go somewhere new now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I think it would have worked better if Khan became a true anti-hero from when he confides in Kirk about Marcus. No lovely betrayal just Kirk and Khan against Marcus... Waste of a character and waste of a story... Can we go somewhere new now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Do we know anything about his motivations outside of wanting his bros back and wanting to punish Starfleet for loving with him? Especially Admiral Marcus. He doesn't betray Kirk, Kirk betrays him first. If the film was played from Khan's perspective or the story reversed (Kirk's crew are held hostage by an evil guy trying to start a war who attempts to assassinate him) then he would be pretty unambiguously the good guy. Khan doesn't even kill any innocents until the very end when he believes he's been utterly betrayed and everything he cares about has been lost. The Man of Steel wiki has this quote: quote:When Goyer was asked about why Zod was chosen as the villain, he stated, "The way (Christopher) Nolan and I have always approached movies as well is you never say, 'Hey, which villain would be cool for this movie?' You start with the story first. What kind of story? What kind of theme do you want to tell? So we worked that out. Then, usually the villain becomes obvious in terms of who's going to be the appropriate antagonist for that. When you guys see the movie, the only villain we could've used was Zod and the Kryptonians. I mean, when you see what the whole story is, nothing else would have even made sense." In this film the decision to have Khan pretty obviously came first and then attempts were made to shoehorn themes for him into the plot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Do we know anything about his motivations outside of wanting his bros back and wanting to punish Starfleet for loving with him? Especially Admiral Marcus. I want to third that this would have been an amazing idea. Either Khan taking his crew and traveling into deep space to found their own society, or maybe even joining Starfleet through proper channels (thus in the next movie he's captain of the Excelsior, always showing up just in time to make Kirk look bad  ), would have been an amazing twist on the idea and shown this is really a new Star Trek. As it is, Khan goes from anti-hero to villain in the final act of the movie pretty much "because." They have Nemoy show up to tell you he's evil and call him a tyrant, which makes no sense unless you already knew his backstory from Space SEED/WoK---everything to that point is so vague he could have been a cult leader, psychopath or simply a soldier before he was frozen.I dunno, I want to like this movie and not be a negative goon because it's not ~my~ star trek or some retarded reason, but it suffers from the same numbskull "TAKE THE BIG TOYS OUT OF THE BOX AND BREAK THEM" mentality as a lot of comic book crossovers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In this film the decision to have Khan pretty obviously came first and then attempts were made to shoehorn themes for him into the plot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
I've noticed that people who don't like this movie's plot tend to complain about the fact that it IS a movie, like, the only reason this scene happened is the writer put it into the screenplay! They just had this event occur to reference an event from another movie! It's like, yeah...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
e: ^^ are you seriously suggesting that storytelling consists of nothing more than one thing happening after another?No Wave posted:Hrrrm interesting, tell me your process for determining this. Because his very inclusion in the film is part of a long list of callbacks to old trek that continually miss the notes of why the things they are calling back to are meaningful and fits into the pattern. Why is Khan who he is and not another character? Is it important he's genetically enhanced? No, the only thing it's important for is so there can be magic blood. Is his crew what's important? It's not like having a crew or feeling empathy is a unique or important trait. Does he have a propensity for violence that people in the Star Trek world have lost? Kinda, but then right at the start of the film Section 31 gets name-checked so clearly there are people around who are willing to be violent to get the job done. He exists to be a callback to WoK in a film full of callbacks to WoK, to the extent that one of the main characters has a skype conference with Leonard Nimoy where he essentially says to the audience "The guy from Wrath of Khan? Wow, he was a great villain wasn't he!" Alchenar fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Based solely upon Into Darkness I'm not even sure why Kirk and Spock are friends. See, go back to any of the old movies and you'll notice that while Bones and Spock give each other tons of poo poo, Spock actually behaved like a genuine if reserved friend to the rest of the crew. Quinto's Spock just seems to be barely restraining his genuine disgust for everyone around him most of the movie, then suddenly because it's the third act he cares about Kirk. That spoils the "death" scene more than anything--it wasn't emotionally earned, because it's not established that Kirk and Spock even like each other all that much! They're just friends because "Kirk and Spock are friends" is a Star Trek Rule. E: I'm going to go one further and say I thought Quinto was the weak link in this movie. Yes, he should make the role his own and not rehash Nemoy's performance, but his Spock is honestly just kind of a dick. We have no reason to buy into his emotional arc in the movie. Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Is his crew what's important? It's not like having a crew or feeling empathy is a unique or important trait. This movie is specifically about having a crew and feeling empathy towards it. Khan fits because he is a villain who is defined by his crew. Space Seed ends with him choosing his crew's life on a planet over getting tried by Star Fleet. Wrath of Khan is about how losing most of his people drew him to madness. If you want to explore a captain's devotion to his crew he's literally the best guy for the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Because his very inclusion in the film is part of a long list of callbacks to old trek that continually miss the notes of why the things they are calling back to are meaningful and fits into the pattern. This is the same odd complaint that Watchmen the film is simultaneously identical to and totally different from the untouched original, which misunderstands that the film is about adapting a story from one medium to another. This Star Trek film is about remaking. The error is in reversing form and content, so that you believe everything is the same but Khan is wrong. In actuality, Khan (the concept) is largely unaltered but the perspective towards him has changed completely. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Piedmon Sama posted:Based solely upon Into Darkness I'm not even sure why Kirk and Spock are friends. See, go back to any of the old movies and you'll notice that while Bones and Spock give each other tons of poo poo, Spock actually behaved like a genuine if reserved friend to the rest of the crew. Quinto's Spock just seems to be barely restraining his genuine disgust for everyone around him most of the movie, then suddenly because it's the third act he cares about Kirk. That spoils the "death" scene more than anything--it wasn't emotionally earned, because it's not established that Kirk and Spock even like each other all that much! They're just friends because "Kirk and Spock are friends" is a Star Trek Rule. Yeah, Into Darkness absolutely tries to leverage achievements that it hasn't earned yet. The reason that Spock's death is so emotional in The Wrath of Khan is because these guys went on a five-year mission together, potentially another five-year-mission after the first movie, and the audience has been watching these characters for almost two decades. That friendship fire has been built, stoked and nurtured in the audience's mind by that point. Orci and Kurtzman, on the other hand, are basically at the point, timeline wise, of halfway through the first season of TOS, but they're trying to act as though Kirk and Spock's decades-long friendship has already blossomed, while at the same time having them be massive assholes to one another. It's the same problem in the Star Wars prequels. All along we were told that Anakin and Obi-Wan were the best of friends and that's why Obi-Wan was so crushed by his heel turn, but Episodes II / III just show them being huge dicks to each other, so we never actually see anything resembling a friendship. On that note, how the hell was the writing process on this movie so broken? The first film came out in 2009, everyone knew a sequel was coming, a June 2012 release date was originally locked, and Orci / Kurtzman / Lindelof didn't even have a treatment or an outline until halfway through 2011.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Even the way the film is written has Kirk at the start saying "Don't you understand? We're friends!" and Spock reacting with a silent "I have no idea what you mean".
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Why is Khan who he is and not another character? Is it important he's genetically enhanced?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Is it important he's genetically enhanced? The entire story revolves around his genetic superiority because it made him valuable to Marcus. If Marcus never wakes him up and tries to use him, then nothing in this story would have ever taken place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
No Wave posted:How is it less important that he's genetically enhanced in this film than in WoK? It's way more critical in this one. He is by himself. It is the only reason that he has any power, and it's the only reason he was woken up and involved with Markus at all. His entire plot revolves around his (genetic) superiority. How would you ever come to make this assertion? Are you sure you're not trying to justify your outrage over seeing your favorite characters presented in a different light? So that he can design weapons. That's the second part of the reason. It makes no sense whatsoever. In WoK it was really important because Khan is a character who's incredibly smart and arrogant because of his abilities. But he's still in new territory and makes mistakes because of it - not changing the Reliant's codes, failing to remember to think in three dimensions in the nebula battle. It's well done because his advantage is also his weakness. It's totally unnecessary for Khan to be genetically enhanced for a section of Starfleet to be focused on designing weapons. It's irrelevant to the plot. If Marcus just had Section 31 making weapons and John Harrison is just John Harrison then the story doesn't substantially change in any way. The way the film actually makes use of his genetic background is as an excuse for a couple of fight scenes where he does some over the top runs and jumps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's totally unnecessary for Khan to be genetically enhanced for a section of Starfleet to be focused on designing weapons. It's irrelevant to the plot. If Marcus just had Section 31 making weapons and John Harrison is just John Harrison then the story doesn't substantially change in any way. The way the film actually makes use of his genetic background is as an excuse for a couple of fight scenes where he does some over the top runs and jumps. But it's necessary for Khan to be Khan because of reasons I already explained above.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Timby posted:Yeah, Into Darkness absolutely tries to leverage achievements that it hasn't earned yet. The reason that Spock's death is so emotional in The Wrath of Khan is because these guys went on a five-year mission together, potentially another five-year-mission after the first movie, and the audience has been watching these characters for almost two decades. That friendship fire has been built, stoked and nurtured in the audience's mind by that point. The filmmakers didn't forget that their main characters aren't 50 years old. You're writing a fanfiction and attributing it to JJ Abrams' soul. The dysfunctional friendship in Star Wars is likewise 'deliberate'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The filmmakers didn't forget that their main characters aren't 50 years old. You're writing a fanfiction and attributing it to JJ Abrams' soul. Pro tip: I never mentioned Abrams once in my post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
I'd say it's essential to the plot that Harrison be a displaced member of another culture (no interest in or connection to whatever "Starfleet" does at first, so they manipulate him) with superior abilities and an interest primarily in his own kin/crew, and for him to be able to pass as a nondescript citizen for the purposes of Section 31's project and the attendant coverup. In that context, Khan and his crew of genetic supermen from Earth's future-past fit the bill as well as anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Piedmon Sama posted:E: I'm going to go one further and say I thought Quinto was the weak link in this movie. Yes, he should make the role his own and not rehash Nemoy's performance, but his Spock is honestly just kind of a dick. We have no reason to buy into his emotional arc in the movie. I really like Quinto's performance and his take on Spock; I think the problem is the story not the actor. You're right that we have no reason to buy his emotional arc or even really believe that Kirk and Spock are friends, but that's because the movies just haven't given them time to act like friends. The movies constantly play on their conflicting character traits rather than their friendship. Quinto plays Spock like he's Kirk's friend, but his time on screen is dominated by their professional differences. I think Quinto does a very good job of it, it just seems off because the character hasn't been justified by what we've seen. Like I said, I think the principle actors' performances were all good to great in this outing, the problem is that the story doesn't earn the emotions we're seeing from the cast. That's part of the problem with the pacing, I think, is that there's so much crammed in that we don't have any time to see what normal behavior from these characters looks like. We only see them under duress because the story doesn't have any breathing room for them to be not under duress. A couple three minute scenes that establish Kirk and Spock's friendship, Bones and Spock's mutual respect, and Spock and Uhura's relationship would have done wonders for the character moments in the movie. As it was the conversation in the alien shuttle (which I expected to be awful) was some of the most natural and affecting interaction in the whole movie. We just have a conversation between a hurt and frustrated girlfriend, a best friend who's kind of feeling the same way but felt too awkward to say it before now, and a friend who's trying to explain himself to people he cares about. It worked when I absolutely didn't expect it to and judging by the audience they agreed. It got a lot of understanding chuckles. A few more scenes of Spock and Kirk just being friends would have made the emotional payoff work a lot better. fake edit: What how can it be essential to the plot that Khan be a foreign superman so that he can pass as normal? computer parts posted:This movie is specifically about having a crew and feeling empathy towards it. Khan fits because he is a villain who is defined by his crew. Space Seed ends with him choosing his crew's life on a planet over getting tried by Star Fleet. Wrath of Khan is about how losing most of his people drew him to madness. All these things you're posting make me wish the movie I saw was about that. Yeah you can see these themes peeking through the shellacking of action sequences and the sheer amount of stuff going on, but they're not well developed or the focus of the movie. Yes, Kirk and Khan both had "anything for the crew" moments but there was also this yelling admiral and a ship crashed into San Francisco and Kirk died and it got lost, unfortunately. Heck Kirk's crew-loving moment gets lost on the next page when he turns it into a trick. I just realized this is yet another story beat from Star Trek II, where Kirk pleads for mercy for his crew and then uses it to trick Khan. Yet again it's just not in the right place and there's too much happening for it to have the impact it did in the original film. In Star Trek II it's a five minute sequence with a lot of dialog, and Kirk explicitly apologizing to his crew for his hubris. Most importantly, the whole victory is Kirk managing to slink away with his tail between his legs and his character arc woefully incomplete, to be picked up again with his rumination on the Kobayashi Maru in the cave and finished by Spock's death and his emotional devastation. In this version the trick defeats Khan in seconds and then we skip straight to Kirk sacrificing himself for his crew, brutally truncating the arc that took Kirk from acts 2 through 5 in WoK. Again the re-imagining picks up on some of it but fumbles the important themes. And then there's this admiral guy and Klingons and rumbling about a ginned-up war. I honestly would like to see Abrams' movie about Kirk's learning humility and Abrams' movie about the struggle against militarism, but I don't think they make one good movie. Turning Khan into an anti-hero who's able to bond with Kirk and come away honorably would have been great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
I don't get why people are saying their friendship isn't "earned." In TOS, McCoy is basically being a snarky bitch to Spock 24/7 from pretty much the first few episodes and we don't get to see them growing into grudging friends, yet that relationship is "earned" but the one between Quinto and Pine's characters aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
There's a Season 3 episode where Kirk gets kidnapped by an alien queen to basically be her sex slave, and Spock and McCoy have to work together to save him that pretty much beats you over the head with "these two guys need Kirk to keep from killing each other" so yeah. Kirk and Spock are friends though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
This whole "gets lost in all the action and CGI" line is one I almost never get. David Denby does it a lot too. How can action make moments of thematic development not exist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:This whole "gets lost in all the action and CGI" line is one I almost never get. David Denby does it a lot too. How can action make moments of thematic development not exist? It's another one of those platitudes that * cf: this post VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is the same odd complaint that Watchmen the film is simultaneously identical to and totally different from the untouched original, which misunderstands that the film is about adapting a story from one medium to another. This Star Trek film is about remaking. Not gonna lie, I often (though not always) find your analysis insufferable, but this is pretty goddamn insightful
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
It's because people don't have perfect recall and can't remember to what exactly they cut away from the thematic moment and exactly how many seconds they didn't linger on it, but they can remember that they seemed to rush past it. Too much happening in a movie is a legitimate complaint the same way that poor use of negative space is a legitimate complaint about visual art. If a remake pulls story beats from an original fairly faithfully, obviously context within the story is the thing people will look at to see whether it works or not. I obviously can't do a shot-by-shot comparison but in the Enterprise's shellacking and subsequent trick sequence, in WoK the crew has a long "we are so hosed" moment when Khan calls them up to gloat, followed by their trick, followed by the time to have a conversation about how their win is still a failure and Kirk should have listened to Saavik. In Into Darkness the trick is preceded by Khan crushing the movie's other main antagonist's head, Kirk escaping him, then the lopsided space battle which is no longer a surprise and has nothing to do with Kirk's hubris. Then we go straight from Kirk's trick to a lengthy sequence of both ship tumbling out of the sky, Kirk's self sacrifice, and a lengthy crash sequence followed by a fistfight on top of a flying aircraft. There's no immediate connection between Khan's easy crippling of the Enterprise and Kirk's hubris, and no time for anyone to comment on it because we're watching USS Venture explode. Then the theme that wasn't really related to this sequence suddenly pops up when Kirk announces he has to go be engineer, but the characters are literally too breathless to say anything about that because they're running and jumping through another major action-effects sequence inside 20 seconds. Again, I can't do a shot-by-shot on this but it's not just white noise. There's little to no time for reaction shots because we have explosions to watch, no time for more than 8 lines of dialog before we have to go run and jump through a gravity-warped Enterprise. Anyway, this is all secondary to the problem that the themes don't work that well anymore because they've been taken from other movies and put into a new plot. Kirk's hubris hasn't been important for quite some time, and doesn't figure into any of the lengthy combat scenes at the climax, until suddenly it does when Kirk announces that it does. Compare that with Wrath of Khan where the Enterprise's asskicking and resulting shield trick is entirely a result of Kirk's hubris. In one movie the theme is organic to the plot, in the other one it's clearly being introduced to a story that doesn't necessarily need it. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Anyway, this is all secondary to the problem that the themes don't work that well anymore because they've been taken from other movies and put into a new plot. Kirk's hubris hasn't been important for quite some time, and doesn't figure into any of the lengthy combat scenes at the climax, until suddenly it does when Kirk announces that it does. Compare that with Wrath of Khan where the Enterprise's asskicking and resulting shield trick is entirely a result of Kirk's hubris. In one movie the theme is organic to the plot, in the other one it's clearly being introduced to a story that doesn't necessarily need it. In this case, I also don't understand how Kirk's hubris hasn't been important when he is disciplined by StarFleet for that exact reason, he fires Scotty for that exact reason, and then launches an ill-advised attack on Klingon for that exact reason. This is all in the first forty-five minutes of the film. It's one of the primary motivators of the plot, and I have no idea how you'd come to believe that it's "not important". No Wave fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
His hubris arc is over by the time he turns around and tells the bridge crew he's sorry, then tells Spock he has no loving clue what he's doing so Spock had better take the ship. That's actually a pretty good arc. I'm not sure what the problem with that arc is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:A few more scenes of Spock and Kirk just being friends would have made the emotional payoff work a lot better. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
api call girl posted:It's another one of those platitudes that Essentially every film is a zero-sum game. There is only so much time that the movie can have whether its 20 minutes or four hours. Every minute spent on GEEWHIZ MICHAEL BAY EXPLOSIONS and also GNARLY SHAKY LENS FLARE CAMERA FIGHTS is a minute that can't be spent on meaningful characterization and plot advancement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 07:22
|
|