|
Dr_Amazing posted:The real bullshit was how, when he was put of contact for a few days, the military is just "Well he's dead. Time to evict his family." Also how this elite guy who needs to conserve battery on his cell phone keeps it on at all times.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Waterworld is on TV and out of the myriad of problems the movie has, one that sticks out the most is how the map to "dry land" that is on the kid is TERRIBLE. It just basically says, go south for land. Not really a map. Maybe the only land left is the continent of Antarctica, did you think of that, hmmm? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Maybe the only land left is the continent of Antarctica, did you think of that, hmmm? Well, ignoring the fact that even if all polar ice melted sea levels would only rise a few hundred feet, there is a sign at the end that clearly indicates they are at the peak of Everest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:Well, ignoring the fact that even if all polar ice melted sea levels would only rise a few hundred feet, there is a sign at the end that clearly indicates they are at the peak of Everest. As if that is the most egregious thing wrong with that movie. How bout cigarettes still being available. For God's sake paper is the most valuable commodity in this world and that's all they're made out of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
I thought it was weird how I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry was supposed to have a pro gay message, but every single gay (no one's bisexual or transgender) character in it acts like a flaming stereotype. Like, as soon as Ving Rhame's big scary fireman character comes out, he starts mincing around and singing campy 80's songs in the shower. In the movie, Adam Sandler is apparently good looking enough to be banging every woman in town, but he's pretending to be in a gay relationship with his friend which gets some people suspicious. The conflict would seriously be solved if he said he was bi and in an open relationship with his friend. Also, none of the gay characters stand up for themselves, Adam Sandler does it for them by cheating the system to get benefits and punching anti-gay protesters in the face. (Considering those protesters are obviously supposed to be WBC members, that's a very bad idea) I can't believe I'm in grade 12 and most of my classmates still think Adam Sandler movies are clever and hilarious. They shouldn't be funny to anyone over 10.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Dr_Amazing posted:The real bullshit was how, when he was put of contact for a few days, the military is just "Well he's dead. Time to evict his family."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:Star Trek: Into Darkness. When Kirk is trying to reseat the warp core thingy. Its in at an angle but instead of pushing it sideways and letting gravity pull it down, hes stamping on the top of it, which just wont help. It wouldnt annoy me if on the last kick he changed it so he was kicking sideways, but he just stamps on the top of it harder. Yeah, I know, very minor point, but it annoys me irrationally If you watch closely you can even see it tilt a bit in the wrong direction one time when he stomps on it, making the misalignment worse. Good work Jim!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
I've watched The Best Offer and the ending really disappointed me - throughout the film characters tease Virgil with oh so deep "can love I think the ending was the weakest part of the film, I've quite liked it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
LeafyOrb posted:I find it more annoying that the whole thing was just an excuse to reenact the most famous scene in all of Star Trek in reverse. Everyone and their dog knew what was going on when Kirk went in there. But really the thing that peeves me off most is that they didn't go through with killing Kirk at least the original waited a movie. Count me in on this too. The whole point of the original was that it was foreshadowed to poo poo that Kirk refused to believe in the no-win scenario while Spock took a more pragmatic approach. The scene in Into Darkness just convinced me that whoever wrote it completely missed the significance of the original, even more so when they revived Kirk practically ten minutes later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
We know they weren't going to permanently kill Kirk in Star Trek Into Darkness, but I still contend it would have been a far better situation for them to at least find a lower-tier character to hoist that honor upon who we could see that might actually be dead: Chekov, Uhura, even Bones has been so little to do that it could have been an interesting turn. Hell, just Killing Carol Marcus instead even would have been a better turn as well and maybe added a strange theme to the proceedings of the films so far: Some crazy man from the future kills Kirk's father, some crazy guy from the past preemptively erases his potential son from existence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:We know they weren't going to permanently kill Kirk in Star Trek Into Darkness, but I still contend it would have been a far better situation for them to at least find a lower-tier character to hoist that honor upon who we could see that might actually be dead: Chekov, Uhura, even Bones has been so little to do that it could have been an interesting turn. There are literally 2 women with speaking lines in that film. I'm not sure it would have been a good idea to kill off one of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:There are literally 2 women with speaking lines in that film. I'm not sure it would have been a good idea to kill off one of them. That's a pretty sexist way of looking at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:There are literally 2 women with speaking lines in that film. I'm not sure it would have been a good idea to kill off one of them. It's actually pretty impressive that the reboot managed to have worse female characters than the 1982 original. At least the original Carol Marcus was a high-up scientist who made decisions about how she was going to bring up her kid rather than an idiot whose only distinction was a powerful father and taking her clothes off for no reason. Personally I would love it if they had killed her off if only for the fact that it would have elevated her from the status of pointless love interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Szurumbur posted:Virgil is given a painting which obviously is the one that was supposed to depict "Claire's" Mother (or at the very least a copy of it) and yet has no reaction to why Billy had painted it? Hey, be fair, I didn't know what to think either, and when you start to figure it out, bam, reveal. It happens very quickly from there Szurumbur posted:He was obviously quite wealthy and I don't think the Secret Room's paintings were even regarded as a part of his fortune, seeing as he had obtained them underhandedly, so the con has not left him a poor man, I think? Yes, he's still wealthy, he can buy the apartment in Prague without a second thought
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:Hey, be fair, I didn't know what to think either, and when you start to figure it out, bam, reveal. It happens very quickly from there Well, just a bit of thought/surprise would be nice, although I suppose Virgil might have simply forgotten about the painting. Also the very name, "Virgil" - might it be symbolic~? I was mostly annoyed because, before the ending, the characters were explaining and talking about everything, quite often needlessly, and then the ending suddenly has a mystery of is he actually in an asylum/were he in an asylum/is it past/future? and the like - the rehabilitation was because of the beating, I think, but the whole timeline of the movie becomes distorted anyway. I thought it was a bit tacked on, but maybe I'm wrong - thankfully I'm in the right thread, at the very least  Szurumbur has a new favorite as of 14:53 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:There are literally 2 women with speaking lines in that film. I'm not sure it would have been a good idea to kill off one of them. A lot of characters (speaking or not) became cannon fodder, anyway, in the film. It wouldn't even matter or not whether a death was permanent, but given the general plot points of the film if it HAD been different characters in that situation then the audience might have actually believed for a moment that the death might be a REAL thing with no take-backs. I know this sounds sort of fanficky, and I've admitted as much, but they should maybe think about just killing off a non-Spock, non-Kirk, non-Uhura character and replace them with a sister or a new female character or something if the crew gender imbalance is an issue with the new movies with a modern audience. Let's say you kill off Bones, TOS Trek does have a few female medical figures that could be reimagined to step into the franchise. Nurse Chapel could have become Dr. Chapel in this timeline (but she might have already been mentioned as a nurse in the films.) Even Carol could have had enough of a medical science background to be upgraded to ship's Medical Officer. As much as people like the actor and his portrayal of the character, Bones's not really had much of a presence in the last film. Introducing Carol and killing off Bones for her to take his place in the crew seems like a potential idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
RE, the end of Into Darkness: Killing and immediately unkilling Kirk was a lovely copout that was probably even worse than when Data died at the end of Nemesis. Data being possibly worse because he was a dumb character nobody liked, and also because they had a loving spare robot body with his memories installed in it, but I'm giving it to Kirk because it was just Abrams twirling his mustache and thinking he was clever for inverting an iconic scene from Wrath of Khan, then weaseling out of any repercussions whatsoever. Just super, super, irritating, and predictable as well. Karl Urban is great as Bones, but he's criminally under-used in those movies. Bones was the human (hysterical) element to balance out Spock's cold logic. The reboot has decided Kirk is going to do that himself, which kind of ruins his characterization in favor of making him a loose cannon who breaks all the rules and isn't really very good at captaining a starship. Same thing with Scotty, actually, being reduced to mostly comic relief (Chekov too, but he was never that big of a deal anyway). It's nice that Uhura becomes a main character, but the actress just doesn't chew scenery the way Urban or Pegg do. I'm just about done with the reboot series, and unless the next one gets good reviews I don't think I'll bother seeing it. They've taken two movies now to get the characters to gel as a crew. I could accept one movie, to launch the franchise, being the origin story, but for gently caress's sake they're still doing the petty infighting bullshit up until the end of Into Darkness (which was entertaining, I guess, mostly because of Benedict Cumberbatch, but it wasn't good at being Star Trek) In terms of more specific things that I found irrationally irritating, both movies decided that the best way to stop an existential threat to the Federation was transporting around and getting into a goddamned fist fight. I got straight-up bored with the boxing match at the end of Into Darkness. It's loving Star Trek, not Rocky Balboa, use the goddamned spaceships as something other than set dressing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
ANAmal.net posted:
The problem is I have is that Quinto, Urban, Pegg, they're not really acting roles, they're doing imitations of Nimoy, Kelley, and Doohan playing Spock, Bones, and Scotty. Nichols didn't play Uhura as a walking ball of affectation, so there's nothing really for Zaldana to hang her hat on with the character. The big problem I had with Into Darkness was that it continues the awful TNG movie trend of not being Star Trek, it's just Generic Space Action Movie. The Kirk death and instant resurrection is an example of why this is so bad: there's no emotional weight that comes from the story, it's all just imposed by fiat. End of Star Trek II, Spock sacrifices himself to save the ship from Khan. This was, at the time, a Big loving Deal. People were all "holy poo poo! Spock's dead!" Out-of-character this was a big deal because he was a well-known popular character, but in-character this was a big deal because he was the hero's sidekick, they'd been adventuring together for years and come to rely on each other. But since the reboot, Kirk and Spock haven't even gone on that five-year mission. They're in the academy together, they barely know each other. There are dozens of other people who die on this ship in this film, Spock probably knows some of them too. Probably a hundred thousand people die on the Earth in this film, Spock probably knew some of them. But it's Kirk's death that gets him all misty-eyed, because that's what the writer wants, not because it flows naturally from those characters being in that situation. The whole franchise is trying to have it both ways. They did the clever retcon where they change the timeline, so anything that happens from that point forth is going to be different from the original Trek and the Trekkies can go get hosed if they bitch about the consistencies. It's a new timeline! We don't have to do the same things! But then since they've dumbed it down to Generic Space Action Movie in Space, they need to do the same things to be able to say "It's Star Trek! See, Spock and Kirk are best buddies. Scotty has a funny accent. Bones is a doctor, not a something-else. Star Trek!" They've done away with the substance of Star Trek, so they have to rely on all the affectations to distinguish it from the exact same movie done without the license. And I still can't figure out why it was so important to get Khan's blood to save Kirk when they'd already established that they've got 72 other Khan-people frozen on board the ship. Irrationally angering things: Kirk's out in deep space, light years from Earth, he picks up his little hand communicator and talks to Scotty, who's in a bar on Earth. Why is Carol Marcus a weapons expert all of a sudden? Yeah, I know, timeline shift, but Carol Marcus was a biologist before that split. Similarly, in the timeline of the original, Khan was around *before Starfleet*. Not knowing who Khan is in this film is like living in Germany today and not knowing who this Hitler guy is that people are talking about. One bit I did like was Kirk telling Scotty "Look, when we get to the bridge, stun him. And don't let him get up." Great, smart move, you know he's going to betray you at some point so do it first. But then Scotty stuns him and...turns away and ignores him and lets him get up. Jesus. Stun him. Then stun him again. Keep on stunning him. While he's stunned, tie him up, and stun him some more. This is an idiot plot moment, where the plot can only advance if characters are idiots. Why does a giant hangar bay, so huge that Scotty having to run back and forth across it is the comic relief, have a single meter-wide hangar door? Also, the whole sneaking into the enemy's column and following them right on through the gate works fine if you're Frodo dressed up an Orc or a British soldier dressed up in an Afrikacorps uniform. It is not believable when you're all flying around in interplanetary spaceships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
The split was when Kirk was born. So the split happened way before she would be the biologist. Also in Space Seed they really did not know who Khan was until Spock did some research. Also there was World War 3 and a lot of history was forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Not to mention they did stuff like change his hair and whatnot. I like to think that spock asking spock-prime about him is akin to many modern Japanese kids have heard the name Hitler but haven't a clue about the holocaust. In turn I like to think the other crew members are thinking to themselves "seriously? He hasn't heard of Khan?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Something that just struck me about the Khan reveal that might have made it more dramatic with the revelation is if everyone else was just, "Oh, Khan, whatever." and Kirk got stunned from hearing the name. Rather than having to go back to Spock Prime for answers , Kirk copes with having a vague memory/premonition of the name Khan thanks to his mindmeld with Old Spock from the first film. He automatically knows the name brings death, but the details are unclear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:A lot of characters (speaking or not) became cannon fodder, anyway, in the film. It wouldn't even matter or not whether a death was permanent, but given the general plot points of the film if it HAD been different characters in that situation then the audience might have actually believed for a moment that the death might be a REAL thing with no take-backs. I like this but kill off Scotty instead of Bones. Karl Urban is quite funny in the movie while Scotty is kind of too on he nose wacky comic relief. Also it would have subverted Kirk as the hero of the film if there was this thing with the true hero running around the background almost unnoticed by everyone on board. During the movie Kirk does nothing but gently caress up or stand around (apart from the helicopter take down), While Scotty stands up for his principles, infiltrates the bad guy's lair and takes out a goon twice his size. Having him be the one to jump into the radiation would give his character some meaning, humble Kirk and subvert the whole KKHHHHHHHHHHAAN thing. The downside being they would probably replace him with Chekov instead of Carl Marcus. However Into Darkness was a mess that would take Episode 1-3 levels of fanwankery to fix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Not to mention they did stuff like change his hair and whatnot. I like to think that spock asking spock-prime about him is akin to many modern Japanese kids have heard the name Hitler but haven't a clue about the holocaust. In turn I like to think the other crew members are thinking to themselves "seriously? He hasn't heard of Khan?" I was able to buy it. Mostly because a lot of modern American schools gloss over things like Japanese Internment Camps and the Bombing of Dresden. Hell the guy that wrote The People's History of The United States was a pilot in Dresden and didn't realize that he had participated in a war-crime until he researched his last mission years later. And with states pushing for things like not using the word slave in history books now it's not so far-fetched that a government would downplay creating a  fueled monster to the point that nobody knows who the gently caress he is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:I was able to buy it. Mostly because a lot of modern American schools gloss over things like Japanese Internment Camps and the Bombing of Dresden. Hell the guy that wrote The People's History of The United States was a pilot in Dresden and didn't realize that he had participated in a war-crime until he researched his last mission years later. And with states pushing for things like not using the word slave in history books now it's not so far-fetched that a government would downplay creating a Also there was a literal world war were a poo poo load of history was lost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Yeah, considering all the nuclear warfare that went on around that time, I'm not too surprised that no one, even trained military officers, recognizes Khan's name 300 years later (EDIT: What does seem stupid is that Spock went to talk to bizarro Spock instead of checking the computers first - you'd think potentially loving with your own timeline, when future you told you not to, would be lower on the list then checking space Wikipedia). There's a lot wrong with Into Darkness, but I'll give them that one. Much as I love Wrath of Khan, it still drives me nuts that they went to put Genesis on Ceti Alpha V and nobody seemed to notice that it was right next door (I mean, OK, actually the same planet, but as far as they knew at the time) to the planet with the colony of angry genetic supermen on it. Just beam right on down, no sense even commenting on the people in that star system who tried to hijack a starship last time around, and were tyrannical rulers of a sizable chunk of Earth before that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:I was able to buy it. Mostly because a lot of modern American schools gloss over things like Japanese Internment Camps and the Bombing of Dresden. Hell the guy that wrote The People's History of The United States was a pilot in Dresden and didn't realize that he had participated in a war-crime until he researched his last mission years later. And with states pushing for things like not using the word slave in history books now it's not so far-fetched that a government would downplay creating a Nothing happened in America after we won WW2 and came out looking like a shining hero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The big problem I had with Into Darkness was that it continues the awful TNG movie trend of not being Star Trek, it's just Generic Space Action Movie. I was never a fan of the original series, I've only seen a few episodes, but I really like TNG, and this is my problem with the TNG and reboot movies as well. I want Star Trek to be about exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilisations and boldly going where no one has gone before. Not fighting bad guys and exploding things. I also didn't like the borg episodes of TNG for the same reason. Or the last couple of seasons of DS9.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Wasn't it Jonathan Frakes who said he wanted to push the Star Trek movies more into Action Movie territory because he thinks thats what the fans want? Riker!  Put content: At the end of Captain America he wakes up in modern times but they built a little fake hospital room to make him believe hes still in the fifties. Ok yeah probably a good idea to prevent freakouts. But they put a baseball game on the radio from before he was frozen so he notices something is off. What the hell SHIELD? You knew EXACTLY when he was frozen. Down to the minute. Did someone think "Yeah just slap on some old baseball game. He'll never notice"? Also, don't build your fake hospital room in the middle of loving Manhattan with just a couple of scrubs protecting it! You know? Just in case he runs out of the building. So he doesn't get a fist full of 21. century right in the face?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Also there was a literal world war were a poo poo load of history was lost. I may not be the biggest Trek nerd, but is the whole "tons of history was lost in a nuclear world war" thing really the case? I watched a lot of TOS and TNG and they were constantly making references to Earth's history, everything from Roman times to Hitler. And in their various time travel(or Holodeck) episodes they tended to be pretty on the ball with historical records. If they know so many exact things, it seems weird that there'd be just a random hole where everyone forgot one of the big names that comes to mind when one things of historical conquerers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Midnight Raider posted:I may not be the biggest Trek nerd, but is the whole "tons of history was lost in a nuclear world war" thing really the case? I watched a lot of TOS and TNG and they were constantly making references to Earth's history, everything from Roman times to Hitler. And in their various time travel(or Holodeck) episodes they tended to be pretty on the ball with historical records. If they know so many exact things, it seems weird that there'd be just a random hole where everyone forgot one of the big names that comes to mind when one things of historical conquerers. In Space Seed it took them a while to realize who he was since history was lost and they had no idea about the Botany Bay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
ANAmal.net posted:RE, the end of Into Darkness: Killing and immediately unkilling Kirk was a lovely copout that was probably even worse than when Data died at the end of Nemesis. Data being possibly worse because he was a dumb character nobody liked, and also because they had a loving spare robot body with his memories installed in it, but I'm giving it to Kirk because it was just Abrams twirling his mustache and thinking he was clever for inverting an iconic scene from Wrath of Khan, then weaseling out of any repercussions whatsoever. Just super, super, irritating, and predictable as well. gently caress you, Data is awesome. I saw Rush recently, and my biggest complaint is there are goddamn pointless, unnecessary voice-overs that bookend the film and ruin pretty much everything. Maybe some people like voice-overs but they are NEVER good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
FLEXBONER posted:gently caress you, Data is awesome. You are wrong.[1] [1] Goodfellas
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:In Space Seed it took them a while to realize who he was since history was lost and they had no idea about the Botany Bay. I went back and watched and you're entirely correct. Whoops. They did have records on Khan Noonien Singh and his atrocities, but it took them a while to figure out that this "Khan" guy they found was the same one. So they had records on Space Hitler but they didn't instantly put 2 and 2 together. People reminded me about the scene where Spock talks with future Spock and future Spock says "As you know I'm not willing to tell you anything about my past because you need to make your own decisions etc etc but I will now ignore that and tell you everything about Khan and how we beat him." Why did this scene even exist? The exposition delivered happens off-screen, so it's not informing the audience about any back story, and whatever insight Spock receives has basically no influence on subsequent events, it has no significance to the outcome of the plot. The whole point of the scene was an unnecessary cameo to bring Leonard Nimoy in and point out that this is Star Trek instead of Generic Space Action Movie. The other thing that's bugging the poo poo out of me about the Star Trek films is how the bad guy has to have some enormous loving ship with a doomsday weapon that takes forever to unfold and fire. They've done this in the last three Star Trek movies (well, actually they've pretty much done it in the last four). And in this one, the big enemy ship has blown the poo poo out of the Enterprise, but then it wants to fire its big gun to destroy it entirely and that takes time during which the day is saved. If it just kept firing its normal, small weapons that it's been blowing the poo poo out of the Enterprise with for 10 minutes, end of movie. So it can't do that, it needs to begin the laborious unfolding/charging of the big gun, thus giving our heroes the chance to escape. It's just such a lazy, hack-rear end-writing way of building dramatic tension, and it happens because the writers have made the enemy so incredibly overwhelming that they need an artificial stopping point to dig themselves out of the hole they've written themselves into. Compare to the original Wrath of Khan. Khan almost destroys the enterprise with a hijacked science vessel that has like two guns and a skeleton crew. It's like producers think that the audience is too dumb to realize that that's the bad guy's ship unless it's three times the size of the hero's, covered in spiky projections and painted black. MJBuddy posted:You are wrong.[1] I'm with the Last Psychiatrist on this one: quote:Voice overs are supposed to be an example of bad or lazy writing, but I have a theory: when a movie has a voice over, it means the character is being dishonest. Not "it wasn't me who stole the cookies" dishonest, but "it's not as simple as it looks, you don't know the whole story, let me explain" dishonest. In other words: BS. This can be consciously manipulative (The Usual Suspects) or unconsciously rationalizing (Sex And The City). The voice over pulls you into the mind of the character and so you are less able to make an objective assessment about what you see. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 14:15 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:You are wrong.[1] I was thinking the same thing, but is a narration throughout a whole movie the same as a voice over at the end of a movie (I.e. Blade Runner)? I watched Iceman last night, which has Ray Liotta in it, which made me want to watch Goodfellas again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
ANAmal.net posted:Much as I love Wrath of Khan, it still drives me nuts that they went to put Genesis on Ceti Alpha V and nobody seemed to notice that it was right next door (I mean, OK, actually the same planet, but as far as they knew at the time) to the planet with the colony of angry genetic supermen on it. Just beam right on down, no sense even commenting on the people in that star system who tried to hijack a starship last time around, and were tyrannical rulers of a sizable chunk of Earth before that. The implication is the Kirk was an irresponsible jackass who dumped Khan on Ceti Alpha V, never went back to check on him, and presumably didn't inform Star Fleet. Chekov was probably the only person in the situation who might have known Khan was there (post-retcon anyway) but its fairly believable given his boring assignment that he simply forgot until he saw the Botany Bay insignia. One of the big themes of the film is how Kirk fucks things up with his irresponsible attitude after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:I was thinking the same thing, but is a narration throughout a whole movie the same as a voice over at the end of a movie (I.e. Blade Runner)? I just don't mind voice overs; it cheaply/simply covers a narrative gap between novels and movies that are usually replaced with incredibly forced exposition. I also liked Sleepers and the Sandlot. I'm not alone. I'm not saying it's always great; nothing is always great. But it's not always bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:I was thinking the same thing, but is a narration throughout a whole movie the same as a voice over at the end of a movie (I.e. Blade Runner)? Blade Runner is not the best example to use for defending the point, given that the narration on that movie was imposed by the studio and everyone up to and including Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford thought it was stupid and terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Blade Runner is not the best example to use for defending the point, given that the narration on that movie was imposed by the studio and everyone up to and including Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford thought it was stupid and terrible. Dark City is also completely ruined by a studio enforced voiceover prologue that spoils the entire film. Its highly unpleasant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Dark City is also completely ruined by a studio enforced voiceover prologue that spoils the entire film. Its highly unpleasant. That one's even worse, because you can't even fast forward past it - there's a visual shot that gives away the Act 2 twist. When I showed it to friends I had to ask them to leave the room while I set it up. Again, though, the Directors Cut fixes it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Blade Runner is not the best example to use for defending the point, given that the narration on that movie was imposed by the studio and everyone up to and including Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford thought it was stupid and terrible. I was using that as an example of a bad one. The Blade Runner voice over is horrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 16:49
|
|