|
Jefferoo posted:
That's really what the new Khan looks like? It's just so...well, "white" comes to mind, but the word I'm really going for is overcompensating. The whole point of Khan was that he didn't need to compensate for anything. He had the biggest dick in the room, he knew it, everyone in the room knew it. He didn't need weapons, and when he did they didn't even need to be good weapons. This is actually part of his comeuppance in Space Seed when he thinks he can just smack Kirk around with his fists, then Kirk blindsides him with a giant metal pipe. This image is so...utterly divorced from that notion of Khan's character I'm just increasingly puzzled why they felt the need to make this guy Khan at all. This would be like the new Star Wars movie making Han Solo dress in all leather and constantly talk about how many boobs he touches (there's probably a fanfic where he does this).
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
In retrospective, I agree with e.g. Jefferoo that the movie was both kind of ugly and fairly ... plain and unimaginative. I hated the story of the first one (TIME TRAVEL), but at least it was very pretty and stuff was going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:That's really what the new Khan looks like? It's just so...well, "white" comes to mind, but the word I'm really going for is overcompensating. The whole point of Khan was that he didn't need to compensate for anything. He had the biggest dick in the room, he knew it, everyone in the room knew it. He didn't need weapons, and when he did they didn't even need to be good weapons. This is actually part of his comeuppance in Space Seed when he thinks he can just smack Kirk around with his fists, then Kirk blindsides him with a giant metal pipe. This image is so...utterly divorced from that notion of Khan's character I'm just increasingly puzzled why they felt the need to make this guy Khan at all. This would be like the new Star Wars movie making Han Solo dress in all leather and constantly talk about how many boobs he touches (there's probably a fanfic where he does this). No, I think "White" is rather appropriate. http://www.geekosystem.com/star-trek-prank/ 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
You could see Star Trek Into Darkness as a commentary on the Star Trek reboot and how needless and silly it has become in over-caricature-ing the original cast of Star Trek. Or as I like to call it, a 'bad film.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:You could see Star Trek Into Darkness as a commentary on the Star Trek reboot and how needless and silly it has become in over-caricature-ing the original cast of Star Trek. With the reveal that co-writer Bob Orci had a Twitter full of Truther bullshit that he deleted, I like the take that Star Trek Into Darkness is a muddled, poorly-realized Truther conspiracy movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:With the reveal that co-writer Bob Orci had a Twitter full of Truther bullshit that he deleted, I like the take that Star Trek Into Darkness is a muddled, poorly-realized Truther conspiracy movie. The first paragraph of that article is "unrelated 'plot holes' prove this film lacked a coherent theme," which is ridiculous on its face. For all the problems you may perceive regarding plotting, style, and ripping off/honoring previous Trek films, you can't honestly say this film lacked a coherent theme. It was simple and blatant and oft repeated: Starfleet (read: America) should not be a military organization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Big discussion over at AVSforum regarding the sound mix for this movie. It seems like the loudness wars for audio CD's are invading movies now. Basically, a $200,000,000.00 budget movie has sound levels driven up so hard that there is hard digital clipping. This thread here discusses it. Please note this is not a movie review thread, it is a engineering and mixing thread with a focus on bass content: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1333462/the-new-master-list-of-bass-in-movies-with-frequency-charts/10230#post_23733397 The link above compares one of the best mixed soundtracks of 2013 (Oblivion) to possibly the worst (Into Darkness). This link shows the hard clipping zoomed in: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1333462/the-new-master-list-of-bass-in-movies-with-frequency-charts/10260#post_23737133 Basically, regardless of what volume you listen to the movie at, the loud portions of the movie will be filled with recorded distortion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
I thought it sounded fine through my 5.1 setup. I'll have to listen through my more neutral AKG's that I used to use for my audio courses in college. There's a lot of smug  "If you can't hear it then you probably enjoyed the movie" bullshit in that thread. They've shown enough proof that there seems to be some clipping going on, but I didn't notice if they made it clear that it occurs at frequencies the human ear can actually pick up on. It certainly isn't the worst sounding blu-ray I own, as many claim in that thread, but that's pretty much subjective. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Sep 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
The noise wars have been a thing in film since around the Transformers movies, or at least that's how they sounded to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
I don't see how loudness wars make any sense in the cinema or DVD format. With radio or CDs, you'll be going through a bunch of songs/albums in a row, so if yours stands out, good for you. But here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't see how loudness wars make any sense in the cinema or DVD format. Maybe it's an attempt to avoid the film being overshadowed by the noises of the film in the next theater?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Maybe it's an attempt to avoid the film being overshadowed by the noises of the film in the next theater? Mutually Assured Deafness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Maybe it's an attempt to avoid the film being overshadowed by the noises of the film in the next theater? But it doesn't make any sense, because the cinema can simply turn up the volume on their end, they don't need a loud DVD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't see how loudness wars make any sense in the cinema or DVD format. I agree. It doesn't make any sense for them to be doing it. So they should stop doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Doesn't suprise me. The grading on STID was awful too. Cingulate posted:But it doesn't make any sense, because the cinema can simply turn up the volume on their end, they don't need a loud DVD. I thought the mix was redone for home video? Guess this is what happens when you know you have absolute poo poo on screen. Trump fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Sep 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Trump posted:Doesn't suprise me. The grading on STID was awful too. Disagree here, it looked fine. I mean it looked kind of bog standard for a Hollywood blockbuster movie, but it visually looked fine. These last 2 Star Trek movies have been the only ones with significant color work done so it's not like there's a certain "look" that is being violated here. At least the sets and costumes weren't so plainly colored that the blockbuster look made everything look blue like it does in every other movie. Cingulate posted:But it doesn't make any sense, because the cinema can simply turn up the volume on their end, they don't need a loud DVD. I'd venture a guess that not all theaters are created equal and just like in music they squish the dynamic range and pump the volume in order to make it sound punchy and loud on the lowest common denominator systems. Remember that a huge marketing push was done overseas and if you're going to be showing in places like China, you might want to dumb down the mix a lot. Although I can't recall audible clipping in the theatre version (but I wasn't paying attention either).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Disagree here, it looked fine. I mean it looked kind of bog standard for a Hollywood blockbuster movie, but it visually looked fine. These last 2 Star Trek movies have been the only ones with significant color work done so it's not like there's a certain "look" that is being violated here. At least the sets and costumes weren't so plainly colored that the blockbuster look made everything look blue like it does in every other movie. Ok great. But it was still graded with a heavier emphasis on teal and orange compared to Star Trek 2009, which actually had a very vivid color palette. And I never said anything about a look being violated, I said it was graded heavily, and it looks like poo poo. Even if it was the first movie to ever do this, it would still look like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
I disagree. I don't think it looks like poo poo. Teal/orange works well because it makes the skin pop. It's an overused look, but the look isn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Although I can't recall audible clipping in the theatre version (but I wasn't paying attention either). It sounded fantastic in IMAX. I wonder if most of the clipping coincides with the weapon sound effects, because you'd never loving notice it with how punchy (obviously a technical term  ) the weapon effects are in these new films.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
A bit of clipped peaks doesn't bother me so much, as long as it isn't constant. What sucks is unnatural ducking and other such compression artifacts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Either way, there is no reason for it. I watched Oblivion pretty drat loud. I also watched Star Trek (2009) at -5db from reference the other day, and that one sounded quite good. The ships jumping to warp was awesome. If the loud portions of this new movie are reaching clipping, it means it's going to sound fatiguing on systems with a lot of detail. There is discussion in that thread about how if you don't listen at reference (studio) levels, it may not be as bad or apparent. I don't usually listen that loud. At -5db, 100db peaks and 113db from the sub are perfectly loud for most movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Just saw this movie the other day. I was kind of hoping Kirk's last words during his "death scene" would have been "Oh my", but then Spock yelled  KHAAAAAAAN and I burst out laughing. That is the appropriate response, right?Also, I liked the warp effect from '09 better. I take it the stretchy ship/shooting glitter out the nacelles was for 3D wanking?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
The Drafthouse here has started running movies just past the point of uncomfortable for volume. It irritates me, I oughta write a letter. :[
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I've actually brought ear plugs to some movies before. And a good projectionist will be mixing for the room, up to and including the amount of people in the theater that are soaking up sound, but good luck finding a good projectionist these days, as most are making minimum wage or are managers who just click "go" or only know how to thread and start. AlternateAccount posted:The Drafthouse here has started running movies just past the point of uncomfortable for volume. It irritates me, I oughta write a letter. :[
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Theaters don't use DVDs. Films come shipped on hard drives for digital houses, and still on film for film houses. Though I've seen twice films straight from DVDs, in small arthouse cinemas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:Just saw this movie the other day. I was kind of hoping Kirk's last words during his "death scene" would have been "Oh my", but then Spock yelled Yes, yes it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
I am a life long Trekie, and I have seen this film twice now and it is glorious. I really don't get the hate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:I am a life long Trekie, and I have seen this film twice now and it is glorious. I really don't get the hate. Boring, plot didn't make any sense, violated most of the basic assumptions about Star Trek mechanics. It was OK though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:plot didn't make any sense You HAVE watched Star Trek before, haven't you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
1st AD posted:You HAVE watched Star Trek before, haven't you? Objection withdrawn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:violated most of the basic assumptions about Star Trek mechanics You HAVE watched Star Trek before, haven't you? fake edit: Star Trek is real bad most of the time
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
The actual problem is that the plot made TOO MUCH sense in this film, loading the film down with exposition when the previous one had left things to inference and let the nerds complain about "plot holes". Consider how much time is spent explaining what the gently caress Khan is up to, compared to Nero in the previous film just showing up and bring crazy. Nero is a way better villain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The actual problem is that the plot made TOO MUCH sense in this film. This was definitely not the problem, although I agree that the last film also made no sense, but in a much more entertaining and economical way. Basically, once you introduce the ability to transport halfway across the galaxy, no script can withstand such a ridiculously over-powered plothole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:This was definitely not the problem, although I agree that the last film also made no sense, but in a much more entertaining and economical way. That's not a plot hole. At worst it's a plot contrivance, which is perfectly fine in a science fiction social parable. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:This was definitely not the problem, although I agree that the last film also made no sense, but in a much more entertaining and economical way. There are 2 Star Trek episodes about this precise thing, and as always it gets blown up or stops functioning because *reasons*
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Something really irks me about the way STID pays lip service to so many aspects of Star Trek without really doing anything with them. The Prime Directive is referenced and established and then not much is really done with it again and everyone appears to ignore it, Tribbles are there because people know what Tribbles are, that sort of thing. Maybe I'm missing some deep and intricate sociological study where the point is everyone's ignoring the prime directive, but in a movie so on-the-nose with the rest of its plot I'd rather have seen the idea of the Prime Directive go somewhere rather than form the basis for the opening and then never get used again. The idea of not interfering with a planet fated to die is a really really cool thing to think about and I'm no Trekkie, but the episodes of the show that dealt with it are great. It felt like the writers didn't know how to tie the themes and logic of Star Trek with the Generic Government Conspiracy Mystery Plot they'd already decided on, so they just opened on Kirk and Spock 'doing Star Trek things.' 1st AD posted:There are 2 Star Trek episodes about this precise thing, and as always it gets blown up or stops functioning because *reasons* Don't forget Threshold! No wait, forget it as fast as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Breaking the Prime Directive leads to Kirk losing the Enterprise to Pike which leads to Pike attending the captain's meeting where he dies which, because it causes Kirk to feel responsible for the death of his father figure, motivates Kirk to seek revenge against Khan and accept Marcus's clearly immoral mission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Plot isn't theme. A scene can be part of a chain of literal events, while still feeling disconnected as a topic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Breaking the Prime Directive leads to Kirk losing the Enterprise to Pike which leads to Pike attending the captain's meeting where he dies which, because it causes Kirk to feel responsible for the death of his father figure, motivates Kirk to seek revenge against Khan and accept Marcus's clearly immoral mission. Yes, I know that's what happens. But surely, having broken the prime directive and having the prime directive and the reason why it exists established in the story, someone would then maybe learn something from the experience? But the rest of the film is Kirk continuing to be an rear end in a top hat to everyone and take the obviously morally-outrageous mission rather than, say, learning from his mistakes. You know, like Captain Kirk might have done in this show called Star Trek. Having breaking the prime directive be the reason Kirk loses the Enterprise is yet another Star Trek Thing they had Kirk do without any heed for why it exists or doing it justice in the context of the story. Also, if you violated the Prime Directive (which I would assume is really important - it's literally Order Number One) wouldn't you lose a little more than your ship?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Plot isn't theme. A scene can be part of a chain of literal events, while still feeling disconnected as a topic. It motivates the protagonists' involvement in the film's central conflict and provides a counterpoint to the mission to kill/capture Khan. It is what Kirk and crew should be doing instead of working as assassins/invaders. That you feel a disconnect between it and the later action is precisely the point. Hbomberguy posted:Yes, I know that's what happens. But surely, having broken the prime directive and having the prime directive and the reason why it exists established in the story, someone would then maybe learn something from the experience? But the rest of the film is Kirk continuing to be an rear end in a top hat to everyone and take the obviously morally-outrageous mission rather than, say, learning from his mistakes. You know, like Captain Kirk might have done in this show called Star Trek. Kirk learns from his mistakes, though. Not immediately, but people rarely do. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:15
|
|