|
Cingulate posted:I find this unconvincing. The Passion happens in a completely different context - we have specific expectations regarding what happens in Hollywood movies with multi-million dollar contracts in general, and those that happen to be reboots full of call-backs to a previous iteration in particular. You find it unconvincing because it was a joke that you are taking too seriously.  I was just goofing on the poster I quoted, not trying to make a serious connection between Kirk and Christ. That's the film's and SMG's job. 
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
IDK guys maybe Future Spock told him he got to roleplay Reagan in space heaven for a while and he took it the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:I'm saying that I think the scene is at least a little bit about Kirk being dead, because the crux of the scene is Kirk having to face his fear of death by actually having to face it himself. PeterWeller posted:You find it unconvincing because it was a joke that you are taking too seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:The death/resurrection scene is pretty transparently supposed to be by-the-numbers and contain little suspense. Abrams isn't an idiot, and he maybe unfairly assumes his audience isn't either - we know we're in for a genre movie, we've all seen the same genre-movie reversals and twists a dozen times at least, everyone loving knows already that Kirk isn't going to be dead forever and Khan isn't going to actually win and overthrow the Federation and it's not exactly difficult to figure out how those things are going to not-happen, he's not interested in devoting resources to playing up the "tension" just because that's what previous movies did at the climactic 1hr15m fistfight-on-a-precipice, nor in subverting them by just doing the opposite of everything, so he plays it through but makes it clear that someone yelling KHAAAAAN or dying in a reactor is about as assumed but irrelevant as gravity. This is a mechanistic, narrative-driven, thoroughly explored universe where those things are going to happen and this is how you deal with them, we know it, the crew knows it, they phone up the guys from the previous movies to ask them for tips on dealing with plot points. So, am I supposed to enjoy the 'intentional' formulaic-ness or should I just go watch an intentionally good movie? This probably comes off as an assholeish thing to say, but are there any sci-fi movies with good original stories that came out this year I should have seen instead? I would like one of those. Maybe Looper? PeterWeller posted:Socrates. You are talking about Socrates, who may have been an invention of Plato's. (I don't think he was, but I don't think Christ was an invention either.) Ah, my bad. I drew a distinction between the Bible and Star Trek Into Darkness because they exist in my mind to serve different purposes. The entire point of my post was the complete opposite of the distinction you think I drew, though. I wasn't calling Jesus a faker or Socrates real or whatever, my point was that whether Socrates was real or not, his message was strengthened by the fact he died for it. I of course don't know for sure whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not, but given we have a strong lack of people coming back to life, a character coming back to life is surely to be interpreted symbolically. Sure you can take the return as literal truth, but then all you have is a guy who died and then came back because he was the immortal son of god all along, which is a pretty piss-poor plot resolution imho. The difference is that Star Trek Into Darkness does not come across in my opinion (but your opinion may vary, I am unironically an anti-intellectual who's been intimidated by JJ Abram's genius before) as an attempt at philosophy, Kirk's death and rebirth happens because Spock died in wrath of khan and they wanted something similar to happen but with a twist, and Kirk comes back because they also couldn't afford to lose a main character. So they had their cake, ate it, un-ate it, and also according to Tubgirl Cosplay ate the whole thing ironically the whole time and it's my fault for expecting cake when I turned up to the bakery this morning. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
You tell me, you're the one who went out to see a loving Star Trek film in 2013. Are you really upset that it's not retreading literally the exact same ground from 1982 as though this is new and exciting, and instead takes all that poo poo as firmly established and tries to build on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:You tell me, you're the one who went out to see a loving Star Trek film in 2013. Are you really upset that it's not retreading literally the exact same ground from 1982 as though this is new and exciting, and instead takes all that poo poo as firmly established and tries to build on it? What does it try to build on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
I watched STID over the weekend for the first time since seeing it in theaters the weekend it came out. So I thought I'd hop into the thread and read the last few pages to see what people are talking about, but 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Cancer is bad, even if you survive it. What's odd is that people are thinking about Kirk's actions almost exclusively in terms of punishment/reward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Ah, my bad. I drew a distinction between the Bible and Star Trek Into Darkness because they exist in my mind to serve different purposes. The entire point of my post was the complete opposite of the distinction you think I drew, though. I wasn't calling Jesus a faker or Socrates real or whatever, my point was that whether Socrates was real or not, his message was strengthened by the fact he died for it. I of course don't know for sure whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not, but given we have a strong lack of people coming back to life, a character coming back to life is surely to be interpreted symbolically. Sure you can take the return as literal truth, but then all you have is a guy who died and then came back because he was the immortal son of god all along, which is a pretty piss-poor plot resolution imho. Broadly speaking, the Bible and STID exist for the same reason: to tell a narrative with a point. I certainly consider them of different magnitude and significance, but we can talk about them as stories. You are doing just that when you call the Resurrection a "pretty piss-poor plot resolution". I think this is really drifting from the point, so I'll just point out that Christ's message was certainly strengthened by his death. That's kind of the whole point of martyrdom. Anyway, I think you're being unfair and too cynical in your assessment of why Kirk dies and comes back. Yes, it is certainly there because the remake you're watching is riffing on what it's remaking. It is, after all, a remake. But it's also there to develop the character into who we all think he should be and serve the film's broader themes regarding militarization and the damage it causes. Sir Kodiak posted:What does it try to build on it? An allegory about the militarization of America in response to the threat of terror.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What does it try to build on it? The only surprise in any given episode of Star Trek is what absurd technobabble scenario they'll be thrust into that week; the whole fun of it (when there is any fun) is in watching the cast try to take it seriously and jump through its insane dream-logic hoops. A space nebula emits anti-evolution rays that've turned Riker into a lizard; a giant space cylinder is going to blow up Earth if they don't go back in time and save the whales. The new movies just take the creaky old 70s/80s narrative conventions of Star Trek itself for their goofy power imposing arbitrary rules that must be puzzled out and overcome. A space wizard has stuck the bridge crew in an old movie and now they have to act out their characters to escape. It's not the most incredibly profound or original twist in the world, and it's not a phenomenal movie; just better and smarter by miles than any Star Trek movie I can recall since the original. I'm glad they didn't just make another joyless slog of the same old Trek stuff for the Trekkies hopelessly trying to make every time be like when they were 14 and had never seen a Trek before?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:An allegory about the militarization of America in response to the threat of terror. Starfleet militarizes in ST:ID in response to, depending on whether you're talking about internal motivations or the public show, a looming threat from a foreign state (the Klingons) or in reaction to a domestic terrorist (Khan). The United States militarized in response to external non-state actors: drug cartels and religious/cultural extremists. It's a very sloppy allegory and not a particularly interesting one. Tubgirl Cosplay posted:The new movies just take the creaky old 70s/80s narrative conventions of Star Trek itself for their goofy power imposing arbitrary rules that must be puzzled out and overcome. At what point do the characters puzzle out the 70s/80s narrative conventions, and what is their method for overcoming them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:At what point do the characters puzzle out the 70s/80s narrative conventions, and what is their method for overcoming them? Well for starters they phone up the guy from the original Wrath of Khan and ask him to tell them the ending. Y'know. Subtle stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:Well for starters they phone up the guy from the original Wrath of Khan and ask him to tell them the ending. Y'know. Subtle stuff like that. Is that them puzzling out the narrative conventions or overcoming them? Because those conventions still seem to be in full effect after the phone call.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Starfleet militarizes in ST:ID in response to, depending on whether you're talking about internal motivations or the public show, a looming threat from a foreign state (the Klingons) or in reaction to a domestic terrorist (Khan). The United States militarized in response to external non-state actors: drug cartels and religious/cultural extremists. It's a very sloppy allegory and not a particularly interesting one. You're right of course. There's no American parallel to using a terrorist attack by non state actors to justify starting a war with a tangentially related nation. The last decade never happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Not really? I mean it's a movie about how the plucky underdogs handily beat the unstoppable moustache-twirling schemers with their brilliant plans pretty much solely because they read ahead in the script and know exactly what they're going to do, what they want, how they work, and how they're supposed to get beaten. Khan kicks them around for a little while anyway because he's a superman but he and the Admiral spend the whole second half of the movie desperately trying to cope as the main cast start only vaguely following the script in increasingly self-aware and cheaty ways, and the unstoppable killing machine winds up getting his rear end kicked in a fistfight by a skinny pissed-off Vulcan empowered with precisely-timed dead buddy rage and a rock.
Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You're right of course. There's no American parallel to using a terrorist attack by non state actors to justify starting a war with a tangentially related nation. The last decade never happened. I thought the allegory was about "the militarization of America in response to the threat of terror." The militarization of the United States wasn't in response to the Iraq War and the Iraq War is mostly limited to being related to that in being a training ground for military-style police once they come home, in direct contrast to the drone-like Vengeance. But perhaps I'm just confused. Can you clarify what you mean when you say that the United States was "militarized"? Tubgirl Cosplay posted:Not really? I mean it's a movie about how the plucky underdogs handily beat the unstoppable moustache-twirling schemers with their brilliant plans pretty much solely because they read ahead in the script and know exactly what they're going to do, what they want, and how they're supposed to get beaten. Khan kicks them around for a little while anyway because he's a superman but he and the Admiral spend the second half of the movie fumbling and watching their script go off the rails and the unstoppable killing machine winds up getting his rear end kicked in a fistfight by a skinny pissed-off Vulcan. Yeah, that's overcoming the previous narrative. How do they overcome the narrative conventions? Because using time-travel information to overcome an enemy seems right in line with those conventions, not an example of overcoming them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
The Patriot Act et al lead to an increased militarization of police in the US. Further there was a cultural militarization as the entire nation "went to war." I think the US is still at war, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
I don't know what you even want here if "asking how the movie ends and what the plot demanded to take down Khan, then acting that out but better and safer" isn't messing with a narrative convention. Yes there's the thinnest possible varnish of technobabble time-travel woo-woo, kinda, sorta, do you really need them to face the camera and break character to deliver their monologue on film theory or else it's all just perfectly straightforward physics?Sir Kodiak posted:I thought the allegory was about "the militarization of America in response to the threat of terror." The militarization of the United States wasn't in response to the Iraq War and the Iraq War is mostly limited to being related to that in being a training ground for military-style police once they come home, in direct contrast to the drone-like Vengeance. But perhaps I'm just confused. Can you clarify what you mean when you say that the United States was "militarized"? Oh sorry you're actually a moron nvm Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:I don't know what you even want here if "asking how the movie ends and what the plot demanded to take down Khan, then doing that but better" isn't messing with a narrative convention. Starfleet officers sending information back in time in order to let their former selves know how to better solve a situation is an actual narrative that has occurred in Star Trek before. How does this instance of doing so differ from previous instances so as to make this an instance of overcoming a convention as compared to the previous examples being, presumably, instances of conforming to it? euphronius posted:The Patriot Act et al lead to an increased militarization of police in the US. Further there was a cultural militarization as the entire nation "went to war." I think the US is still at war, who knows. Yes, I know these things. I appreciate that there is a vague resemblance between the events of ST:ID and America post-9/11. I'm suggesting that they have been recombined in a manner that loses so much of the actual cause-and-effect as to make the allegory useless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Starfleet officers sending information back in time in order to let their former selves know how to better solve a situation is an actual narrative that has occurred in Star Trek before. How does this instance of doing so differ from previous instances so as to make this an instance of overcoming a convention as compared to the previous examples being, presumably, instances of conforming to it? How about you explain why you think it is they have Kirk kill himself for all of like fifteen minutes 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Spock called up his previous actor that is totally from the future and not a previous movie, who told him that due to quantum fluctua-waves in the orgone conduits the timestream demands blood sacrifice while someone yells KHAAAAAAAN. That's what he was really explaining offscreen after all that 'at great cost' stuff. No narrative gaming or fourth wall breaking here, just ordinary timewar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:How about you explain why you think it is they have Kirk kill himself for all of like fifteen minutes No thanks. I was curious enough about your theory to ask for clarification, but if you're not interested in going into more detail that's fine. Cheers!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
The message of Star Trek II was that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Star Trek Remake II challenges the definition of 'many' by criticizing the exclusive liberal humanism of the series. People are flagrantly misreading the tribble scene. The message is that Kirk is a mere pest animal, like a tribble, unless he truly commits himself to an ethical ideal. The tribble is symbolic, like the dog imagery in Battle: Los Angeles - when a marine checks a dog's tags and wonders aloud why someone would give a dog a human name. Dog-tags, get it? "In the electoral campaign, President Bush named as the most important person in his life Jesus Christ. Now he has a unique chance to prove that he meant it seriously: for him, as for all Americans today, "Love thy neighbor!" means "Love the Muslims!" OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL." -Zizek, 2001 The 'muslims' in the film are, of course, the Klingons - not the Klingons who joined Starfleet, like Worf.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
I haven't seen it since theaters, but isn't most of the intel the Weller gives Kirk wrong or deeply flawed? Like the ruined province of Kronos not being abandoned at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I thought the allegory was about "the militarization of America in response to the threat of terror." The militarization of the United States wasn't in response to the Iraq War and the Iraq War is mostly limited to being related to that in being a training ground for military-style police once they come home, in direct contrast to the drone-like Vengeance. But perhaps I'm just confused. Can you clarify what you mean when you say that the United States was "militarized"? Fair enough; my phrasing was rather broad. I mean the broad-reaching militarization of American culture and hegemony following 9/11. The Iraq War is the direct parallel to the Klingon War Admiral Marcus desires. The drone imagery and parallels to the raid to kill OBL exist to delimit the criticism, so that it is not just about Bush and Iraq, but about the continued War on Terror. The parallels don't have to be exact. It's an extended metaphor, and the point is that adopting a militaristic response to the tragedy flies in the face of the ideals that America/Starfleet professes to hold so dear and only serves to cause more tragedies like the one in the film's climax that is nearly literally the "9/11 times 1000" threatened in Team America. Maarak posted:I haven't seen it since theaters, but isn't most of the intel the Weller gives Kirk wrong or deeply flawed? Like the ruined province of Kronos not being abandoned at all. That's pretty much the extent of the intel Marcus gives him, and it's tough to tell if it's wrong or not. They attract the attention of Klingon patrol ships, which would seem to indicate the region is inhabited, but on the other hand, we don't see any other signs of habitation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
I don't remember anything really clarifying what the hell the deal was with Kronos or the Klingons, like my knowledge of Star Trek extended universe horseshit is pretty patchy but they're running around this giant city and while I'm pretty sure we don't see anyone except for patrolcars full of knife-wielding space savages it's still huge loving skyscrapers that everyone's just blasting away at with abandon, and they look pretty rusty and dirty and maybe like those guys shoot at them a lot. And then apparently the Klingons are going to care deeply if the Federation drops a bunch of corpses on their shot-up possibly-abandoned urban fight dome, but wouldn't have done anything crazy like blamed the Federation if they were actual bombs I guess. It'd make sense if it was actually a heavily populated city center and Kirk's being set up to do some absolutely unignorable provocation but having gone through it I'm really not clear on whether that was actually what happened or not. I feel like you were really expected to know something in particular about the Klingons or the significance of that spot or something that was missing, and aside from "they're space Russians plus honorable warrior poo poo" I don't. It sorta read like if Bush had secretly conspired to roll out the PATRIOT Act by crashing a 747 into a random patch of Afghan mountain. Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I mean the broad-reaching militarization of American culture and hegemony following 9/11. This may extend farther into political debate than necessary, but I didn't really see 9/11 as causing significant militarization in regards to our external use of force. The state surveillance and internal-security apparatuses got a real shot in the arm, but American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't particularly more indicative of a militarized nation, as far as I can tell, than American involvement in Vietnam or Korea. It's just the sort of poo poo we do. I'm not suggesting that none of the parallels are there. That would be insane. But I don't think it holds up enough to actually serve as an allegory for post-9/11 America. For it to be emotionally satisfying (to me) to see the America-analogue turn away from that path, I think the path would have to be more analogous. At which point I'm left with a movie that I didn't find as fun, exciting, or visually striking as the previous one. Where this still sort of works for me is that the movie is, in part, reacting to the fact that the Federation was always less humanitarian and more imperialistic than it was willing to admit - particularly when viewed from the perspective that the other movies and TV shows all occurred before this one in reality, even if not in the in-universe chronology. But that strikes me as being more relevant to America having gone the wrong way during the Cold War, with our modern state the ugly outgrowth of that paranoid mentality, than 9/11 being a breaking point. Which actually fits in pretty nicely with the time-travel narrative and the Klingons historically being analogous to the Soviets. I might have to watch it again from that perspective to see if it holds up, since I'd assumed it was a more conventional 9/11 reaction movie the first time through, which I found to be an unsatisfying reading for reasons explained here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
I could maybe accept the Klingon part of the story if the movie made slightly more emphasis on the Klingons being a threat. Other than being told the Klingons are up to no good, having something in the film show some examples that supported the Marcus agenda and that we were already at an active antagonistic state with them could have been useful in giving the characters added justification in being willing to launch missiles at their homeworld. The whole Klingon subplot feels like a speedbump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I could maybe accept the Klingon part of the story if the movie made slightly more emphasis on the Klingons being a threat. Other than being told the Klingons are up to no good, having something in the film show some examples that supported the Marcus agenda and that we were already at an active antagonistic state with them could have been useful in giving the characters added justification in being willing to launch missiles at their homeworld. Yeah but OTOH the movie had enough villains as it was; leaving the Klingons as largely unspecified Bad poo poo lurking at the fringes ready to ruin everything gave you really all that you needed to know. They'd probably have been a bit more menacing or understandable as a threat if we'd never seen them at all than been left with the image of them being that doofy sword mook fight but hey, fights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This may extend farther into political debate than necessary, but I didn't really see 9/11 as causing significant militarization in regards to our external use of force. The state surveillance and internal-security apparatuses got a real shot in the arm, but American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't particularly more indicative of a militarized nation, as far as I can tell, than American involvement in Vietnam or Korea. It's just the sort of poo poo we do. Fair enough. I do see a shift that occurred post-9/11. We've been a meddlesome and militarized nation ever since becoming a real world power, but we at least played lip-service to consensus before the Bush administration. Since then, we've been much more happy to unilaterally exercise force. You're correct to see that Starfleet never really lived up to its professed ideals. That's all over the movie, and I think it's part of the larger parallel being made between Starfleet and America. I don't think that at all contradicts or undermines the indictment of 21st Century America. Fundamentally it all comes back to Scotty's point: we are meant to be explorers, not soldiers. JediTalentAgent posted:I could maybe accept the Klingon part of the story if the movie made slightly more emphasis on the Klingons being a threat. Other than being told the Klingons are up to no good, having something in the film show some examples that supported the Marcus agenda and that we were already at an active antagonistic state with them could have been useful in giving the characters added justification in being willing to launch missiles at their homeworld. The whole point is that the characters aren't justified in being willing to launch missiles at the Klingon homeworld. Marcus is a villain who misleads Kirk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
I think the better post-9/11 allegory about Into Darkness is the fetishism for the military, and military action, that has really cropped up over the last twelve years -- and Marcus' scheme is what happens when some "ARE COUNTRY" goober actually gets into a position of real power. Marcus' role in Into Darkness is kind of like a better version of Admiral Tolwyn suddenly going all crazy and trying to manufacture a war by way of secret programs (because he felt mankind was never better than when it was facing extinction by the Kilrathi) in Wing Commander IV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:you call the Resurrection a "pretty piss-poor plot resolution". That part was a joke. Timby posted:I think the better post-9/11 allegory about Into Darkness is the fetishism for the military, and military action, that has really cropped up over the last twelve years -- and Marcus' scheme is what happens when some "ARE COUNTRY" goober actually gets into a position of real power. Marcus' role in Into Darkness is kind of like a better version of Admiral Tolwyn suddenly going all crazy and trying to manufacture a war by way of secret programs (because he felt mankind was never better than when it was facing extinction by the Kilrathi) in Wing Commander IV. This movie certainly highlighted for me how easy it is to manufacture a war, even in an organisation of apparent peacekeepers and explorers. You can see why they don't want to play god with the Prime Directive, they know on some level they'd probably gently caress it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Timby posted:Marcus' role in Into Darkness is kind of like a better version of Admiral Tolwyn suddenly going all crazy and trying to manufacture a war by way of secret programs (because he felt mankind was never better than when it was facing extinction by the Kilrathi) in Wing Commander IV. That's a great analogy, but I think the difference between the two characters is their that Marcus wants a war for a practical reason. He's playing a game of Civilization, sees the enemy faction nearby, and knows 100 turns ahead they'll be at war by virtue of their respective territories butting against each other. Tolwyn's desire for war is more philosophical: he doesn't care who the enemy is, or why the enemy is the enemy, as long as there is war. Hbomberguy posted:This movie certainly highlighted for me how easy it is to manufacture a war, even in an organisation of apparent peacekeepers and explorers. You can see why they don't want to play god with the Prime Directive, they know on some level they'd probably gently caress it up. This is more for the non-movie Trek thread, but that's supposedly the basis for the PD. No matter how good your intentions, no matter how willing the underlings are, eventually you're going to get really comfortable with telling the lesser guys what to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:This is more for the non-movie Trek thread, but that's supposedly the basis for the PD. No matter how good your intentions, no matter how willing the underlings are, eventually you're going to get really comfortable with telling the lesser guys what to do. I really want to see a movie completely explore the entire gamut of stuff that can happen because of the Prime Directive being broken / being obeyed when it's not always a good idea to do so. it's just a fun topic to explore and see people's perspectives on. Into Darkness picked basically the best counterpoint to the prime directive possible, saving someone from a volcano that would kill them otherwise is basically never a bad thing, but when it comes to playing god, the lines blur a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Into Darkness picked basically the best counterpoint to the prime directive possible, saving someone from a volcano that would kill them otherwise is basically never a bad thing, but when it comes to playing god, the lines blur a bit. I can't agree with this. The scene where the aliens at the beginning unceremoniously dropping their Ancient Texts to draw the Enterprise was incredibly powerful to watch. Because they couldn't save the aliens without exposing themselves, they've significantly and irreparably changed how those aliens are going to develop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I can't agree with this. The scene where the aliens at the beginning unceremoniously dropping their Ancient Texts to draw the Enterprise was incredibly powerful to watch. Because they couldn't save the aliens without exposing themselves, they've significantly and irreparably changed how those aliens are going to develop. Oh totally, yeah. But I'd rather have aliens with a drastically altered worldview than no aliens because they all burned to death. I love that scene too, by the by.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:That part was a joke. I figured, but it still served my point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Speaking of the "sparkly warp effects for 3-D only", I took that as overflow from the Bussard collectors. That or accumulated space dust left behind as the ship accelerated to unimaginable speeds. Don't get the hatred for the leaps in logic in this movie when I distinctly remember the giant gently caress-all engineering macguffin of the week that TNG trotted out every third episode, solved at the last minute by inverse tachyons or somesuch nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
I actually really liked the warp effect. It was reminiscent of the light-show approach of the TOS movies, but with the extra detail modern tech makes possible (the blue lines breaking up into little particles instead of just being stretched-out light). It had character. I actually think the thinking with Kirk's death may be partly backwards. In Star Trek II, Spock dies so that Kirk learns a lesson about death and how you can't cheat it forever. In Into Darkness, Kirk dies, and Spock, who had previously gotten Kirk in trouble for saving him, who had been ready to die, doesn't accept Kirk's death, and goes to beat up Khan to get his blood to revive him. It's Spock who is changed more by the experience. Maxwell Lord fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
I loved Star Trek 2009, STID just plain sucked in my opinion. A thing I am still not sure about is: Where there any explosives on the torpedoes to start with? It looked like the cryo tubes would take up all the space inside. Now this would work fine if they launched them at Kronos because the people inside would still die except for Khan who would probably survive a couple of cryo tubes impacting in some area around him (if they didn't just burn up in the atmosphere but I'm no expert on Trek physics). So when they transport the emptied torpedoes onto Khan's ship at the end did they fill them with explosives that they just had on hand or what? Oh also, what is the neutral zone? The orders were to not go to Kronos and instead go to the border of the neutral zone and fire these new long range torpedoes, yes? The Enterprise was on its way there when the warp core gave out and they were stranded. Right above Kronos. How does this work? Am I too stupid or is the movie?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 07:25
|
|