|
Lord Krangdar posted:Weren't the Romulans originally space Russians? Klingons are more like space Vikings. It's not THAT simple of an analogy that you can simply say "Klingons = Russians" 
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Klingons are space vikings, Romulans are space russians, Humans are space racists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
In TOS the Klingons were space Russians in that they were a clever and cunning adversary to the Federation's USA. In TNG the writers decided to make Klingons space Vikings for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with SMG's interpretation is that it isn't actually the scene itself that's uncomfortable. It's the scene instantly after that where Kirk is suddenly now on the bridge. You spend a few seconds trying to work out what the narrative reason for Marcus to lead him onto the shuttle and get changed in front of him when it turns out that he was going to get straight back off the shuttle oh and they're also talking over the radio so really the only reason that scene happened was for boobs. I'm not sure that undermines SMG's interpretation. The fact of Marcus's disrobing not actually making any sense or having to do with anything else going on whatsoever only serves to put more immediate weight on it, right? Kind of an "oh, by the way, this is a REALLY Strong Female Character we've got ourselves here, yes sir." It really underlines the fact that in a popular action blockbuster you're getting T&A no matter what so you may as well grit your teeth and wait it out. Lord Krangdar posted:Your explanation of what you meant by identifying with Kirk is appreciated, but its still not the way I actually experienced the scene and it still doesn't make Marcus' dialogue to Kirk into explicit requests to the viewer, like you were arguing earlier. You've explained how you see the scene, but not why I or anyone else should see it that way. Haha, see? Yeah, you pretend to be asking questions in good faith and in the same breath demand me to source my claims that Abrams has a forked tongue and dry, scaly skin. That's really rich. I repeat: I am not the kind benefactor who is going to guide you as you work through your affected(?) helplessness and ignorance in the face of written English. Seek help elsewhere. In fact, you're also pretending that anything I've said pivots on whether Carol Marcus was literally breaking the fourth wall and directly and explicitly asking the camera itself to turn around, when I've said repeatedly that the actual content of her reaction has no bearing whatsoever on my criticism. I've explained this several times but each and every time you tragically trip over an adjective and then forget, whilst puffing on your bubble pipe and asking terribly insightful questions, what it was that anyone is actually saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Weren't the Romulans originally space Russians? Klingons are more like space Vikings. With bubble pipes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
TOS: Space KGB TNG: Space Cossacks
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'm not sure that undermines SMG's interpretation. The fact of Marcus's disrobing not actually making any sense or having to do with anything else going on whatsoever only serves to put more immediate weight on it, right? Kind of an "oh, by the way, this is a REALLY Strong Female Character we've got ourselves here, yes sir." It really underlines the fact that in a popular action blockbuster you're getting T&A no matter what so you may as well grit your teeth and wait it out. I'm trying to get to the core of your objection and it seems like it's that people had the opportunity to get aroused by Alice Eve's body - as if their arousal is somehow harming her. To object to putting a female character in a position where she could cause arousal simply for that fact is to grant all power to the male gaze. To have an attractive female character and to comment upon how that changes her relationship with the male leads might not represent an ideal world, but I think it's a totally fair depiction/commentary on the world we live in. Someone's attractiveness is probably the single strongest determining factor in how they are treated by strangers. Again, a movie can't objectify someone. A movie depicts - the viewer objectifies. Obviously a movie can invite objectification, which this film does, but then rebukes Kirk for doing exactly that. If the complaint is "can't we at last have a summer blockbuster without t&a???", I could probably name some but that's not the point either. I mean, this film engages with the fact that the (male) summer blockbuster viewer wants to see T&A and then rebukes them for it. Is it better for the audience - to whom the film is made to communicate - to ignore that they do want it, or to engage with that desire? I mean, to go further, by saying that people have lost something when they show their skin onscreen you are creating something to be embarrassed about. They are effectively losing control of their body when you say that it's a tragedy for them to show their skin onscreen, because no matter how well you phrase it you are shaming them for doing so by claiming that something is lost. Even if you blame Abrams, you are reinforcing the completely arbitrary shame for the female "victim". No Wave fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jul 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Haha, see? Yeah, you pretend to be asking questions in good faith and in the same breath demand me to source my claims that Abrams has a forked tongue and dry, scaly skin. I've been asking you repeatedly to back up the following accusation, not this new round of random bullshit you've invented out of thin air. Ferrinus posted:Keep it coming, maybe it will distract from the fact that it's actually proponents of the scene we're talking about who invent lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams. Which proponents of the scene were you talking about in the above quote, and which posts? I can't make this question any clearer, if you still are unable to respond directly then remove the plank from your own eye before criticizing my supposed "affected(?) helplessness and ignorance in the face of written English". quote:In fact, you're also pretending that anything I've said pivots on whether Carol Marcus was literally breaking the fourth wall and directly and explicitly asking the camera itself to turn around, when I've said repeatedly that the actual content of her reaction has no bearing whatsoever on my criticism. I know that you keep saying that stuff doesn't matter to you, but that attitude is a a big part of what I've been objecting to. Maybe what you're missing is that I don't see her reaction or the other details of the scene as an excuse for the bearing of skin, because I don't think a woman showing skin in a film necessarily needs to be excused in the first place, without first taking into account context and how its handled. You seem to think other posters have been arguing that Marcus' reaction is a contrived justification for the scene (and the for the viewer who watched it) to be given after the fact, but that's not it at all. So when you sarcastically tried to summarize my position as "the person we're ogling is just so cool and above us that really it doesn't bother them at all so we're really not doing anything wrong" what you missed was that I never felt I ogled her nor that I did anything wrong there so I don't need that excuse. Marcus' reaction cannot be reduced to a contrived way of justifying the scene. It's actually an integral and inextricable part of the scene; it is the payoff. Marcus' reaction to Kirk's ogling should be relevant to your arguments because you mentioned that the audience shares in Kirk's "payoff", but this supposed payoff shot is her reacting disdainfully and making him look pathetic by comparison. You can choose to ignore that part and just focus your arguments on Marcus' state of undress in the same shot, but that's a choice you've made for you to defend, not just restate over and over. You were the one who first mentioned those ideas about her addressing the viewer (not the camera), I just responded to what you brought up: Ferrinus posted:Here's what strikes me about Marcus's scene, incidentally. It happens lateish in STID, when the movie's already entered high-stakes action thriller mode and everyone's worried about capturing Khan or solving the mystery of section 31 or whatever. It's not a scene early in the movie back on earth when everything's relatively fine and you might expect a bachelor Kirk to be on the prowl, it's not even a scene early in the mission when Marcus has just been introduced to the crew and the Enterprise is still in transit so a bored and antsy Kirk might be willing to try his luck, or whatever. In fact, both characters are in transit and in a rush, off from doing one important thing to do another really important thing, and Marcus is in a hurry to get changed - it's obvious to everyone, Kirk included, that there are not going to be any smoldering makeout sessions on the brief shuttle ride to the bomb disposal zone. Also, thus far Marcus hasn't shown any romantic interest in Kirk at all. Ferrinus posted:Huh, so although she explicitly asks us not to look at her, but really, she just doesn't care if we're looking at her or not. That's lucky for us, I guess, that the person we're ogling is just so cool and above us that really it doesn't bother them at all so we're really not doing anything wrong. Saying I've been "tripping over adjectives" is abdicating your responsibility to communicate your own positions clearly. Also I would object to you now blatantly inventing a caricature of me, but first how'd you know about my rad bubble pipe? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jul 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I'm trying to get to the core of your objection and it seems like it's that people had the opportunity to get aroused by Alice Eve's body - as if their arousal is somehow harming her. Neither of these are correct, no. Defenders of the scene have repeatedly claimed attackers of the scene are treating the actress involved as a victim and/or attempting to shame the actress but this isn't actually the case. The problem with the scene is that it continues a lovely pattern of portrayal of women in mass media. This is actually pretty similar to the earlier argument about Khan's whitewashing. "They shouldn't have gotten a white guy to play Khan" isn't the same statement as "The white guy who played Khan did it badly" or "The movie was worse because a white guy was playing Khan" or "It didn't make sense in the movie that Khan was white". Lord Krangdar posted:Which proponents of the scene were you talking about in the above quote, and which posts? I can't make this question any clearer, if you still are unable to respond directly then remove the plank from your own eye before criticizing my supposed "affected(?) helplessness and ignorance in the face of written English". I told you where you could find this. Maybe stop being lazy. quote:I know that you keep saying that stuff doesn't matter to you, but that attitude is a a big part of what I've been objecting to. I don't care whatsoever how you felt, though. You'll note that I haven't attempted to play twenty questions with you as to whether you were aroused by the scantily-clad Marcus, and if so whether you think anyone else was aroused, and if so what you think would've had to change in order to make the scene arousing, etc, as you keep trying to do with me in reverse. The actual emotional reaction of the audience doesn't matter here because we're talking about the scene, not the audience watching the scene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I told you where you could find this. Maybe stop being lazy. No seriously quote the post or posts cause I don't know what you are referring to at all and I have looked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:No seriously quote the post or posts cause I don't know what you are referring to at all and I have looked. Here's one from the top of page 150: quote:I think the trouble we're faced with here is that supporters of the scene approach it with the premise that Eve is a person and portrays one, where detractors approach the scene from the standpoint that Eve is (by default) an exploited victim, Carol Marcus is an object, and both must earn full personhood by displaying a certain level of 'depth' via such factors as screen time, percentage of body covered, etc. But of course neither I nor Supercar nor whomever else have ever claimed that the actual irl actress is an exploited victim or something. It's like, what, if we got a signed note here from Alice Eve herself explaining that the whole thing was her idea the argument's off because that's all anyone was actually concerned about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I told you where you could find this. Maybe stop being lazy.  quote:The actual emotional reaction of the audience doesn't matter here because we're talking about the scene, not the audience watching the scene. When you say things like "all of us watching the movie look along with him" or "Marcus didn't want us to look at her, and we did anyway" or "we've violated Marcus's privacy" you are talking about the audience watching the scene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Here's one from the top of page 150: This: SuperMechagodzilla posted:I think the trouble we're faced with here is that supporters of the scene approach it with the premise that Eve is a person and portrays one, where detractors approach the scene from the standpoint that Eve is (by default) an exploited victim, Carol Marcus is an object, and both must earn full personhood by displaying a certain level of 'depth' via such factors as screen time, percentage of body covered, etc. Does not resemble this, at all: Ferrinus posted:it's actually proponents of the scene we're talking about who invent lurid fantasies of the sobbing Alice Eve being cruelly coerced into stripping down by a hissing, malefic Abrams. What was that you were saying a little earlier about "helplessness and ignorance in the face of written English"? You've now fully demonstrated that you're completely full of poo poo and either totally unaware of totally unashamed of it, so I'd say we're done here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Holy poo poo dude it's called exaggeration and it's not some grave rhetorical fallacy
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:This: Ohhhhh poo poo, this is totally not the exact response I expected you to have given the fact that you're terrified of figurative language and have repeatedly resorted to pedantry instead of actual responses over the last several pages of this thread. This is especially rich because the thing to which I actually responded with "a hissing, malefic Abrams" was this: Lord Krangdar posted:I'm pretty sure that both the fictional character Carol Marcus and actually existing Alice Eve are going to be just fine after enduring the terrible traumatic violation of being glanced at for the briefest of moments In response to which, you'll notice, I didn't start rolling around helplessly on the ground while demanding that someone source and cite the adjectives "terrible", "traumatic", and "briefest". What's really clever, though, is how your faux(?) confusion shading into outrage has given you an excuse to not answer the actual point, which is of course that the real life actress Alice Eve's supposed victimization has only ever been mentioned by proponents, not critics, of the scene we're talking about. quote:When you say things like "all of us watching the movie look along with him" or "Marcus didn't want us to look at her, and we did anyway" or "we've violated Marcus's privacy" you are talking about the audience watching the scene. No...? If you're talking about a movie and say something like "We see Spock scream in rage" you are not making a claim which somehow depends on the irl audience sitting in the theater also getting angry or something. Here, again, you are trying to dive into a pedantic fog rather than actually answer anything being said. After all, I just told you I'm not talking about the audience's emotional reaction, and instead of nodding and proceeding having been offered clarification (I personally don't think it was necessary clarification, but hey, maybe I'm a bad writer or you were low on sleep when you read my last post or what have you) you immediately whirl around going "but, but, but...!" and pointing in outrage at the specifics of my prior wording. In this way you ensure that you never actually have to do anything but ask for semantic clarification, repeatedly, forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
You know what would be a thing you could revisit in the sequel? The Tholians. If you really want to finally start exploring the unknown, they're deliberately designed to be the most alien aliens in Trek's history. They're strange crystalline dudes who are wildly xenophobic, they live in a part of space that just slides into another dimension now and then, we've only ever seen one of them head-on, you could really make a nice mind-gently caress of a movie with the Enterprise trapped in Tholian space and trying to get out before everyone goes insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What's really clever, though, is how your faux(?) confusion shading into outrage has given you an excuse to not answer the actual point, which is of course that the real life actress Alice Eve's supposed victimization has only ever been mentioned by proponents, not critics, of the scene we're talking about. No. Crappy Jack posted:Or, as has been documented as happening in numerous motion pictures, it was implied to her that if she didn't do the scene they would seek out an actress who would be willing to do it, and then she would be out the exposure and money that goes with appearing in a huge budget blockbuster sci-fi franchise film. But no, the up-and-coming young actress appearing in her largest role to date probably really really wanted to have a scene where she appears in her underwear. I mean, if you're gonna start bringing in hypothetical thought processes, I'm probably gonna side with the one that's been demonstrably true for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The actual emotional reaction of the audience doesn't matter here because we're talking about the scene, not the audience watching the scene. You can't separate the meaning, significance or lack thereof of the scene from the audience's emotional reaction. The scene isn't some pure artifact; it exists as something whose very existence is predicated on an audience seeing it and reacting to it. Indeed, your very disapproval of the scene is rooted in your emotional reaction to it. You are inclined to disapprove of the seemingly exploitative exhibition of a woman in a state of undress, so you are upset by the scene, and I mean upset in the broadest sense. I don't know if you are angered, bothered, irritated, or just mildly annoyed by it, but however it makes you feel, that feeling is your emotional response to the scene and leads to your judgment of the scene. This goes back to what I was trying to get at in my last post, that the scene is fundamentally flawed, and that's what's driving this argument. The scene fails to establish the emotional connection that supports its point--Alice Eve/Carol Marcus doesn't give two shits about your male gaze. Defenders of the scene see the attempt to make that point reason enough to include the scene. Detractors see the failure to hammer home that point reason enough to cut the scene. Essentially, it's a rhetorical problem. Everyone can see the logos of the scene--Carol is at best slightly annoyed by Kirk's ogling, but the scene is framed and presented in such a way that it fails to connect the audience with Kirk and achieve the proper pathos to get the audience to really give a poo poo. So it comes down to ethos: if you are willing to give a mainstream blockbuster credit for trying to comment on male gaze, you're inclined to give the scene a pass; but if you see it as just a continuation of a detestable trend in mainstream blockbusters, you're going to be upset (again, in the most general sense of the term).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:You know what would be a thing you could revisit in the sequel? The Tholians. If you really want to finally start exploring the unknown, they're deliberately designed to be the most alien aliens in Trek's history. They're strange crystalline dudes who are wildly xenophobic, they live in a part of space that just slides into another dimension now and then, we've only ever seen one of them head-on, you could really make a nice mind-gently caress of a movie with the Enterprise trapped in Tholian space and trying to get out before everyone goes insane. Do the Tholians have a planet? They could make good use of their totally alien nature to have the Enterprise crew wear some special spacesuits to visit the place. There's gotta be some dough to make in extra suits/costumes for character action figures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
korusan posted:Do the Tholians have a planet? They could make good use of their totally alien nature to have the Enterprise crew wear some special spacesuits to visit the place. There's gotta be some dough to make in extra suits/costumes for character action figures. Did Into Darkness even have a toy line? I didn't even notice one this time around, but to be fair I'm sure there's still plenty of leftover stuff from 2009 Trek still on the shelves. Not to say there wasn't a ton of promotional tie-ins, but I just didn't seem to notice the fast-food or toy presence for STID like I did about 4 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Did Into Darkness even have a toy line? I didn't even notice one this time around, but to be fair I'm sure there's still plenty of leftover stuff from 2009 Trek still on the shelves. Not to say there wasn't a ton of promotional tie-ins, but I just didn't seem to notice the fast-food or toy presence for STID like I did about 4 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Did Into Darkness even have a toy line? I didn't even notice one this time around, but to be fair I'm sure there's still plenty of leftover stuff from 2009 Trek still on the shelves. Not to say there wasn't a ton of promotional tie-ins, but I just didn't seem to notice the fast-food or toy presence for STID like I did about 4 years ago. The toy line from ST2009 sold like dog poo poo, so Paramount didn't even bother with one for Into Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
I love it! Your parting shot is just one last dose of using semantics to deliberately and dishonestly miss the point. As you yourself pointed out, Crappy Jack made that post on page 145 and hasn't otherwise actually been quoting or responding to you, me, Supercar, Cingulate, or anyone else in the main thrust of this argument for the past six pages. You know who, in that conversation, has been trying to make the conversation about whether Alice Eve the actress is being cruelly exploited? Well, SMG, you (in your literal exact post that I quoted and responded to with the remark that so completely confounded you) and, most recently, No Wave. How on earth have you not understood by now that this poo poo doesn't actually work? Peter Weller posted:You can't separate the meaning, significance or lack thereof of the scene from the audience's emotional reaction. The scene isn't some pure artifact; it exists as something whose very existence is predicated on an audience seeing it and reacting to it. Indeed, your very disapproval of the scene is rooted in your emotional reaction to it. You are inclined to disapprove of the seemingly exploitative exhibition of a woman in a state of undress, so you are upset by the scene, and I mean upset in the broadest sense. I don't know if you are angered, bothered, irritated, or just mildly annoyed by it, but however it makes you feel, that feeling is your emotional response to the scene and leads to your judgment of the scene. When I first saw the scene in theaters, I actually just found it funny. I really like the exasperated, talking-to-a-goddamn-child voice and bearing that Marcus used and it was funny to me that what had appeared at first blush to be a more straightforwardly indulgent scene had been so rudely cut off. I didn't give it much more thought til the last few pages of this thread. My criticism of the scene is retrospective - I liked it straight off, but in the final estimation it seems like a shame that they felt the need to do it at all. quote:This goes back to what I was trying to get at in my last post, that the scene is fundamentally flawed, and that's what's driving this argument. The scene fails to establish the emotional connection that supports its point--Alice Eve/Carol Marcus doesn't give two shits about your male gaze. Defenders of the scene see the attempt to make that point reason enough to include the scene. Detractors see the failure to hammer home that point reason enough to cut the scene. Essentially, it's a rhetorical problem. Everyone can see the logos of the scene--Carol is at best slightly annoyed by Kirk's ogling, but the scene is framed and presented in such a way that it fails to connect the audience with Kirk and achieve the proper pathos to get the audience to really give a poo poo. So it comes down to ethos: if you are willing to give a mainstream blockbuster credit for trying to comment on male gaze, you're inclined to give the scene a pass; but if you see it as just a continuation of a detestable trend in mainstream blockbusters, you're going to be upset (again, in the most general sense of the term). I've always agreed that the immediate effect of the scene is to castigate rather than further the male gaze. I think the actual problem is a bit more insidious: that the male gaze has got to be included, even if our Cool Tough Strong Character is able to soundly defeat it rather than crumble beneath its awful force. I feel like it's to the scene's credit that the scene becomes more and more skeevy the more you think it through. Like I mentioned a page or two ago, given the hierarchical relationship Kirk and Marcus are in, Marcus is empowered to give Kirk poo poo over his behavior but she isn't actually empowered to stop him from violating her privacy in the first place, to impose some kind of official sanctions on him for his behavior, or to remove herself from his power - the actual action plot of the movie is too big a deal. So, in the same way that Khan's whiteness is an implicit commentary on the ideal of whiteness that lurks at the heart of starfleet's military ethos, Marcus's harassment is a commentary on the problems our military has with sexual harassment, mistreatment of female officers, etc. It's arguably quite realistic that she has to put up with this bullshit. On the other hand, "realism" of this kind tends, itself, to be really indulgent - when you get people writing gritty, dark, "realistic" fantasy, for instance, you sure do see a lot more rape than dysentery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Okay I've got another idea for the next movie- the Enterprise becomes trapped in a time loop and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy find themselves going through the same argument over and over and over again. It's like that Next Generation episode with the poker game only louder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
I think a good way to cap off the trilogy would be with a saucer seperation. I don't know where it would fit in but I'm sure they could make it look pretty cool and unique. Just don't make it a Generations-type thing; if I recall there were dozens of times they wanted to do it in TOS bt couldn't fit the elaborate effects into the budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Time become a loop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QER_yqTcmjM
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
korusan posted:I think a good way to cap off the trilogy would be with a saucer seperation. I don't know where it would fit in but I'm sure they could make it look pretty cool and unique. Just don't make it a Generations-type thing; if I recall there were dozens of times they wanted to do it in TOS bt couldn't fit the elaborate effects into the budget. I had no idea the original enterprise had this capability. Even in my Star Trek nerd books it doesn't mention that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Fuzzyjello posted:I had no idea the original enterprise had this capability. Even in my Star Trek nerd books it doesn't mention that. Had they actually shown a saucer separation in TOS, yeah it would have then been in a nerd book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Kirk mentions it in the episode where they fight the sentient giant rock dragon head. According to Memory Alpha, the guy who dies in that episode happens to be 'Cupcake' from the modern movies!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
korusan posted:Kirk mentions it in the episode where they fight the sentient giant rock dragon head. Is that the episode where these people are sacrificing themselves by entering its mouth to be burned alive?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
I've skimmed a few of the JJTrek comic books online and I'm sort of surprised that Cupcake's is featured in one of them. Given the fact that the reboot movie franchise will likely only tell 3 or 4 films worth of stories before it's done, has there been talk of novels based off the reboot universe to help better expand it? According to Memory Alpha, 4 announced books set in the new timeline were put on hold about 3 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This thread is making me re-evaluate the movie. It's positively refreshing in comparison. As someone who finally saw the movie, and absolutely hated it, reading this thread allows me to get at least some entertainment out of it. I feel like I got my money's worth, thanks to this thread. Jack's Flow fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Normally I have a bit of love for movies that the masses decide are terrible. Transformers was fun. Man of Steel laid wonderful groundwork for a reboot. Avatar was visually stunning with a good, if unoriginal, story. So when I kept hearing that Into Darkness has been widely considered to be trash, I giggled with glee. I was obviously going to love it! But drat. I saw it last night and I don't think I've ever been so disappointed with a movie in my entire life. The original Star Trek reboot got me hooked as a fan. I was always more Star Wars than Star Trek but the 2009 movie changed that. It did exactly what it was designed to do, draw in people who never really liked Star Trek. But Into Darkness undid all of that. I think it may have even retroactively made me hate the 2009 movie, because now I can't even think about it without remembering Into Darkness and becoming very very sad. What the hell went wrong? How come nowhere during its development did no one look at what they were making? And the worst part of it all is if J.J. let this steaming pile out into the world, what the hell is he planning to do to Star Wars? He may very well destroy two franchises I love. I know I'm getting strangely worked up about it, but drat I want that 2 hours and 12 minutes of my life back. And I've never felt that way about a movie before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Esroc posted:How come nowhere during its development did no one look at what they were making? A well reviewed movie that a lot of people liked?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
It was a fun movie, but at the same time I think story-wise it was a complete mess. I don't think rehashing Wrath of Khan was really needed. Hell, I still think Cumberbatch would have made a better young Chang than Khan, just work that into a film, instead, and it would be a better character to explore. Starfleet Intelligence unknowingly infiltrated by a Klingon spy that accidentally uncovers a plot by a rogue Admiral to bring about a war between both parties could have been an interesting premise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Got the review copy of the bluray sent in the other day. Looking forward to tomorrow's screening of this movie. The only lovely part about the screenings is the author of the reviews requires the sound setup to be calibrated to "studio reference". Which means I can't turn up the subwoofers. I usually like playing the subs 3db hot for most action movies. I haven't seen the movie yet, however last night I rewatched the 2009 Star Trek, and I had it going pretty loud. The sound of the ships jumping to warp is truly a thing to be heard at 115db.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
jonathan posted:I haven't seen the movie yet, however last night I rewatched the 2009 Star Trek, and I had it going pretty loud. The sound of the ships jumping to warp is truly a thing to be heard at 115db. I am definitely going to check this out. I really enjoyed a lot of the sound in both films, particularly the first battle scene in the 2009 film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Esroc posted:And the worst part of it all is if J.J. let this steaming pile out into the world, what the hell is he planning to do to Star Wars? He may very well destroy two franchises I love. I'm definitely on board with this. Despite its huge budget, Into Darkness is an ugly, cheap-looking film. The visual design is cluttered, making it hard to follow the action in many scenes. Someone is constantly flashing lights into the camera so the actors are always obscured in a white glow. The fight on Klingon had some of the worst set design and camera work I have ever seen. It looks like something shot for television. Finally, all the dutch angles put the film closer to Battlefield Earth than Star Trek in terms of visual presentation. Its a shame story concerns have dominated discussion about the movie because ST: Into Darkness is an ugly loving film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
All of that also describes ST09 as well. Not saying that makes it good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Yeah, so I didn't enjoy this film, but I appreciate the attempt to make the villains of the film literal fanfiction - right down to the very loving core. Like, the bad guys are a 12 year old's imagination, with all their Mary Sues and all - I know because I was 12 and I had the same dumb ideas about pretending to be a Starship captain - with a super stealth warship armed to the teeth, the Section 31 with their secret manufacturing base, Khan being pretty much all powerful and hardly any weaknesses - it's like a loving 12 year old was in the writing room.  Let's start with the USS Vengeance. This very shot lines up the hilarity of it's invention - it's loving name alone is so ridden with loving angst. The way Bendy Dick Come On Me Bats describes it to Kirk is also hilarious - "twice the size, three times as powerful, with advanced weapons technology," he's like a child describing his poorly drawn sketch to his friends. The fact it runs on a skeleton crew, even one person if necessary, removing the need to write stories for any other characters in their fan fiction is simply perfect. It's a Section 31 project - the secret black ops division of the Federation that answers to nobody and plays by their own rules - meaning that there's no pesky authority figures to stop them from doing what's necessary and unleashing hot firey death upon those who oppose them with their mechanically enhanced space dick. The ship is a childish power fantasy designed by someone feeling so powerless in their own lives they need to escape to a fantasy of ridiculous, extremist power imbalance in order to have some sort of dopamine release.  Which brings me to Khan. Khan is hilarious - superhuman with magical space blood, who always seems to be one step ahead, and if it's not through outsmarting his enemy it's through brute force, because he's just that cool damnit. In this scene on Cronos, where he shows up above everyone, in his dark cloak, dual-weilding two ridiculous weapons, dominating everyone, wiping out the Klingons without breaking a sweat singlehandedly - it's a vulgar display of power. Nothing fazes him, not even a battalion of Klingons. He is a child's self-insert, again such a ridiculous, over the top power fantasy that it's utterly hilarious. It's the truly disgusting practice of white washing him with Cumberbatch and removing any sort of history between Kirk and Khan, which was a large part of why Wrath of Khan worked. The reveal is utterly pathetic, because it has nothing to do with the actual film - and everything to do with the audience. "Hey! Remember this guy! This is how you know he's the real villain! Also we needed... an excuse... to have Old Spock show up, for some reason, I guess..." Khan's inclusion is really the writers not feeling confident in their villain on their own, which they were right to, because he was a rather weak one, and is even worse making him Khan. Mainly because he's a 12 year old's fanfiction Mary Sue, but alas.  There is a story in there, of course, about the "real Trek" of Kirk and company defeating a children's overpowered inventions of the Vengeance and an ubermensch with magical space blood working under a secret black ops organization that answers to nobody to do what needs to be done, but it was rather wasted on Into Darkness' complete lack of imagination - down to suicide bombers and Khan committing space 9-11 against San Francisco, which is truly hilarious considering Trek '09 also involved Earth in it's climax. There's a sheer lack of the imagination that Trek was really known for, and it as a film really fails to take any risks, unfortunately, even down to magical space blood bringing Kirk back to life in it's final moments.  Pictured: The core villain of Into Darkness. Notice how everyone is white, much in line with Khan's whitewashing in Into Darkness. It's a real lack of consequence honestly, to confront the fact that the Enterprise and it's crew are up against a child's power fantasy - plot armor versus desperate angst - the death and destruction Khan causes are hardly touched upon. His space 9/11 is quickly forgotten, and Starfleet quickly rebuilds, same as it ever was. In a sense, it feels more like a squash - a kicking of dirt in the poor 12 year old boy's face, his young mind's creations destroyed and trampled over as the "real Trek" carries on without a hitch. Almost as if "real" writers, frustrated with fandoms and fan creations, felt the need to stomp them outright, infuriated anyone would want a Trek beyond the official canon. Into Darkness feels more like a vulgar display of power than a real critique of it's own ideals, whilst it touches on the long distance drone strikes of the American government, a mandatory moment of covering real world issues, it quickly drops this subplot to continue it's throwbacks to Old Trek.  The penis is canon. The alien is fans. "Real" Kirk is hiding, sweaty, clutching to "real Trek" hoping the fan fiction writer, in all their horror, cannot find him, as he descends Into Darkness. yronic heroism posted:I like the episode where Sisko said "Actually black people weren't really welcome in the setting of this hologram program" and boycotted it. Yo, can I get some embellishment on this episode? I wanna watch it if it's possible. Jefferoo fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 04:09
|
|