|
Helsing posted:--hand held space cell phones that are capable of instantaneous faster than light communication Yes what a preposterous thing Star Trek 12, released in the year of our lord 2013, created. 
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:Communicators have always been FTL-capable over limited ranges, though. How exactly would you measure if a communicator was FTL if it's over limited ranges?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:How exactly would you measure if a communicator was FTL if it's over limited ranges? By limited I mean 'within a star system or so'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Some random script highlights: A lot of these are only problems if you expect Star Trek to be totally serious, consistent, and realistic. Star Trek has never been totally serious, consistent, or realistic. quote:--200 Year Old man who for some reason can build vastly better spaceships than contemporary scientists. Starfleet scientists didn't have as much experience making weapons because the Federation was ostensibly a peaceful organization. quote:Kirk must learn to control his anger, be mature and get over the death of his father figure... again... Kirk had to admit he had no idea what the right course of action was, and then do it anyway. That's a big deal for the guy who wouldn't even except the academy's test on no-win situations as a no-win situation. quote:--Political tensions alluded to with Klingons and then just kind of dropped as the script moves on even though the actions of the main characters clearly should have triggered a war. The script writers have such contempt for their audience I don't even think they bothered to throw in a line explaining why slaughtering Klingon's on their home planet didn't start a war... if they did "explain" it and I missed it, then they still just hand waved it away in a single line. The Klingon attitudes toward war, death, and honor are totally different than humans. Those Klingons' families could avenge them, sending an entire army would be dishonorable. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:A lot of these are only problems if you expect Star Trek to be totally serious, consistent, and realistic. Star Trek has never been totally serious, consistent, or realistic. True, but good Star Trek tended to be silly inconsistent and fantastical in the pursuance of interesting ideas, not action movie stuff. quote:Starfleet scientists didn't have as much experience making weapons because the Federation was ostensibly a peaceful organization. Does everyone in the Federation really have that little imagination? If I had to choose between the entire modern population of Iceland or Napoleon Bonaparte for someone to build super drones, I'd pick the Icelanders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:
They also want it to be a secret operation, plus Khan is genetically designed to be super-smart. It's more like an average member of Iceland vs Thomas Edison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
So the federation hires the best and brightest humanity has to offer, but none of them know how to build weapons at all except Khan, a man the Federation built?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:So the federation hires the best and brightest humanity has to offer, but none of them know how to build weapons at all except Khan, a man the Federation built? Huh? Wasn't he part of some war before the founding of the Federation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
I actually really liked the communicators being ultra long-range unlike ever before, because it made me go "wow, that's cool", which is something that bullshit star trek technology stopped doing a long time ago. Especially because the communicators are something that was originally a futuristic element in Star Trek, but has since become one of the most dated, since modern smart phones are much more advanced. Giving them ultra long range makes the futuristic again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
When did they have ultra-long range? Kirk called Scotty on Earth but I assume that Enterprise and Earth's comm network were routing the call. After all, Scotty didn't call them to tell them what he found around Jupiter until they were right next to Vengeance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:So the federation hires the best and brightest humanity has to offer, but none of them know how to build weapons at all except Khan, a man the Federation built? Into Darkness is absolutely riddled with flaws, but are you really complaining that a character that was supposedly so smart that he had to be loving frozen because he was a threat to all of humanity wouldn't be able to sit down with some schematics for current gen engineering designs and figure out a few ways to improve them? I mean its not like he built them out of balsa wood and canvas using age old tech or something, he had plenty of time after he got thawed out to steal and modify existing starfleet designs. Its not that Starfleet was dumb, it's that Khan was really smart and he got to sit down with already existing starfleet tech and optimize it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
I also got the impression that Khan's expertise was strategic/tactical in nature in that he was designing weapons that would correctly suit the goals of Admiral Marcus. Look at real life examples: The American Military-Industrial complex has produced some incredibly "effective" technology, but it has also produced over-engineered, designed by committee, completely impractical nightmares like the F-35. The f-35 would have been game-changing 40 years ago, but it's irrelevant to the way the US military operates currently. If Khan's role was to help spend their budget more efficiently, that is much more plausible than "he literally created better military technology".
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
Snak posted:I also got the impression that Khan's expertise was strategic/tactical in nature in that he was designing weapons that would correctly suit the goals of Admiral Marcus. Look at real life examples: The American Military-Industrial complex has produced some incredibly "effective" technology, but it has also produced over-engineered, designed by committee, completely impractical nightmares like the F-35. The f-35 would have been game-changing 40 years ago, but it's irrelevant to the way the US military operates currently. If Khan's role was to help spend their budget more efficiently, that is much more plausible than "he literally created better military technology". Yeah, but his crowning achievement is basically something that looks exactly like the Enterprise and is much, much larger, and black because it's evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah, but his crowning achievement is basically something that looks exactly like the Enterprise and is much, much larger, and black because it's evil. It functions completely differently though. The enterprise has a very large crew. This isn't The Next Generation, we've always been given the impression that these crew members have jobs that are necessary to some degree. The big black evil ship of doom has been designed to enable a small team of bring a massive amount of firepower to bear extremely quickly, and it can even be operated by a single man. The star trek equivalent of Metal Gear. This is the complete opposite of Starfleet's normal designs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
Snak posted:It functions completely differently though. The enterprise has a very large crew. This isn't The Next Generation, we've always been given the impression that these crew members have jobs that are necessary to some degree. The big black evil ship of doom has been designed to enable a small team of bring a massive amount of firepower to bear extremely quickly, and it can even be operated by a single man. The star trek equivalent of Metal Gear. This is the complete opposite of Starfleet's normal designs. This just makes me sad the Dreadnought never roared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Into Darkness is absolutely riddled with flaws, but are you really complaining that a character that was supposedly so smart that he had to be loving frozen because he was a threat to all of humanity wouldn't be able to sit down with some schematics for current gen engineering designs and figure out a few ways to improve them? I mean its not like he built them out of balsa wood and canvas using age old tech or something, he had plenty of time after he got thawed out to steal and modify existing starfleet designs. Its not that Starfleet was dumb, it's that Khan was really smart and he got to sit down with already existing starfleet tech and optimize it. All of humanity three hundred years ago. Let's assume for a moment that the Federation, the peak of human development, was the Federation, the peak of human development. It's the kind of thing I will happily drop at the time because the story 'works' pretty well on a character level, but it just smacks of not being a very good reason. What made Khan so creepy in the previous movie he appeared in was his ability to beat you on sheer tactics alone. If I recall, the ship he wins on is weaker than the enterprise. In this one, Khan builds a big black evil version of a ship, like no-one in the loving entire federation could possibly think to make their ships bigger. I don't like to compare the films because these new movies are allowed to be different, but the sheer lack of subtlety in the plotting is palpable even though the characters, in my opinion, were done quite entertainingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:In this one, Khan builds a big black evil version of a ship, like no-one in the loving entire federation could possibly think to make their ships bigger. To be fair, it also had the capability to attack while warping, which took the Enterprise completely by surprise. It also seemed to be packing weapons that we hadn't seen on other Fed ships (like the two big rear end cannons that Scotty disabled). It was also able to be crewed by very few people. So there was more to it than "just bigger". Half the 'flaws' that people point out in this film are caused by not paying attention or just not liking the story. There aren't actually that many plotholes, although there are a few goofy things in the mix that people could get irritated by if they choose to obsess over them. And to Kahn's credit as a character, he was able to manipulate his way to sole control of the dreadnaught even though nobody trusted him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
pigdog posted:You'll notice the plot holes after the credits roll, but not while the movie is rolling, because it's moving at such a breakneck pace. I'm sure the first Star Wars movies had plenty of plot holes, too, and I'd really liken this one to them. The dirty secret about this thread is that Into Darkness has actually been well-received by and large. It's got almost 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, for crying out loud. Box office could have been a bit better domestically (and mostly due to off-timing/ bad marketing), but still very strong for the series. I have my own problems with the movie as a fan (big problems, actually): that it brought back my favorite Star Trek character after 30 years and made him unrecognizable in terms of characterisation, appearance, or...really anything, but I felt the movie did its job as a summer blockbuster admirably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
I still think the film would have worked better with Cumberbatch as Chang than Khan, though. You already have a number of Klingon plot points and throwing out the superhuman parts of the story for undercover Klingons would have worked just as well. Still a 'superman' compared to normal humans, now quoting some Shakespeare instead of Milton and turn the film into maybe a bit more suspense and espionage sort of thing. I know all this sounds sort of fanficky, but I'm just sick of post-TNG Klingon depictions and I would have liked to have seen New Trek maybe go back to something different with their Klingons to that could maybe sort of bridge the gap between the TOS-eras and the TNG era of how their culture and society, fashions and personalities were betrayed. Hell, throw out the Carol Marcus character and plotline completely and just have him be a romantic rival to Spock for Uhura could have been an interesting twist. Spock and Uhura show signs in the film anyway of becoming slightly distant, so have this undercover Klingon sort of appeal to her by being passionate, charming, romantic, impressing her with the most fluent Klingon she's ever heard from a human, etc. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
lizardman posted:The dirty secret about this thread is that Into Darkness has actually been well-received by and large. It's got almost 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, for crying out loud. I know people poo poo on RT for the ratings, but this movie is extremely high in both the critic and fan ratings. Something like 87% and 90%, which doesn't reflect the critic/fan divide problems that people like to point out as a flaw in RT's system. If you only read this thread, you'd probably think the movie was universally panned, when the reality is pretty much exactly the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I know people poo poo on RT for the ratings, but this movie is extremely high in both the critic and fan ratings. Something like 87% and 90%, which doesn't reflect the critic/fan divide problems that people like to point out as a flaw in RT's system. If you only read this thread, you'd probably think the movie was universally panned, when the reality is pretty much exactly the opposite. I'm pretty sure it was actually lower rated closer to when the film released, but yeah it's actually gotten about the same critical reception as stuff like Inception. I won't be surprised if we have another one in summer of 2016 (to catch the renewed Sci-fi craze brought about by the new Star Wars movie).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Into Darkness is roughly the same film as Man of Steel, only not as good. It's not egregiously bad or anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Into Darkness is roughly the same film as Man of Steel, only not as good. It's not egregiously bad or anything. You have to remember that Star Trek fans evaluate Star Trek films for their contributions to the Star Trek canon and not on any other kind of criteria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm pretty sure it was actually lower rated closer to when the film released, but yeah it's actually gotten about the same critical reception as stuff like Inception. I won't be surprised if we have another one in summer of 2016 (to catch the renewed Sci-fi craze brought about by the new Star Wars movie). That's not exactly a bold prediction; the whole reason they're searching for a new director (Joe Cornish turned them down, so they're back to square one) is because Abrams is tied up with Star Wars and they want to get a movie in theaters in 2016 to coincide with the 50th anniversary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
1st AD posted:You have to remember that Star Trek fans evaluate Star Trek films for their contributions to the Star Trek canon and not on any other kind of criteria. Trek fans seem to have on both JJ films quite a bit, though. Especially Into Darkness for some reason. Then again, your quote makes sense either way really. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
1st AD posted:You have to remember that Star Trek fans evaluate Star Trek films for their contributions to the Star Trek canon and not on any other kind of criteria. I'm a hard core original series and Next Gen fan and I enjoyed Into Darkness and so did my wife, who is a big Trek fan. Sure, I could nit-pick it to hell and back but I would like to see a sequel with Cumberbatch bath as Khan for some wrath, maybe. I'm kind of sad that the new fans of all this nerd stuff that's become popular lately - LOTR, Trek, GoT, etc. - don't seem to understand that long-standing fans of a work are closer to the source material and can more easily, and are more likely to, point out flaws in a reboot or a remake or an adaptation. Sure, if it's your first outing with something you're not going to give a gently caress, of course you aren't - it's your first time seeing it; you have nothing to compare it to and you didn't want anything out of it to begin with. You didn't have an expectation, hence you're easy to please. Please, though, just keep blindly making GBS threads on the fans, though. You know, the people responsible for something even having the longevity to stick around long enough to see a reboot in the first loving place. It's the popular thing to do these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Dystram posted:
A lot of problems develop because fans have a slavish devotion for the original work and don't understand how things need to be changed when the medium is changed. That's why you end up things like the outcry over the Scouring of the Shire being cut, because while it's the "most important part of the entire trilogy" it's totally a pace killer. And then you have situations where a certain interpretation is deemed "the correct one" even if it's not the original one. You get that issue in Man of Steel comparing with the 70s film and you get it here comparing these films with TNG. computer parts fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:True, but good Star Trek tended to be silly inconsistent and fantastical in the pursuance of interesting ideas, not action movie stuff. Trek has always pursued both, and this film is no different. There is a clear political allegory that runs through the film and unifies its otherwise pretty ridiculous plot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Please, though, just keep blindly making GBS threads on the fans, though. You know, the people responsible for something even having the longevity to stick around long enough to see a reboot in the first loving place. It's the popular thing to do these days. I've probably spent months of my life watching Star Trek in one form or another and I think I'm safe in saying that Star Trek fans are the worst about devotion to the canon even when it's clear that Star Trek has never given two fucks about canon and will change whatever is necessary in order to fit the current story. In fact the only consistent things to be found in Star Trek are sexism and the unabashed celebration of American Exceptionalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I have my own problems with the movie as a fan (big problems, actually): that it brought back my favorite Star Trek character after 30 years and made him unrecognizable in terms of characterisation, appearance, or...really anything, but I felt the movie did its job as a summer blockbuster admirably. Well he's not really the same character. 1st AD posted:You have to remember that Star Trek fans evaluate Star Trek films for their contributions to the Star Trek canon and not on any other kind of criteria. Even then, taking the repeated criticisms in this thread seriously would mean like 90% of even just the main series (meaning TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise) was a detriment to the all-important canon. EDIT- Didn't see your last reply where you basically said the same thing. Dystram posted:Please, though, just keep blindly making GBS threads on the fans, though. You know, the people responsible for something even having the longevity to stick around long enough to see a reboot in the first loving place. It's the popular thing to do these days. If someone is a fan of the canon first and foremost, like the idea of the franchise as some kind of window into a believable and consistent possible future world, then they can't possibly be fans of the actual shows. Because Star Trek is not that and never has been. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot of problems develop because fans have a slavish devotion for the original work and don't understand how things need to be changed when the medium is changed. That's why you end up things like the outcry over the Scouring of the Shire being cut, because while it's the "most important part of the entire trilogy" it's totally a pace killer. Yeah it would totally kill the pace of the six fadeouts that happen in the last half an hour of that film... It is however a natural consequence of making Aragorn the main character of the trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I know people poo poo on RT for the ratings, but this movie is extremely high in both the critic and fan ratings. Something like 87% and 90%, which doesn't reflect the critic/fan divide problems that people like to point out as a flaw in RT's system. If you only read this thread, you'd probably think the movie was universally panned, when the reality is pretty much exactly the opposite. Or if you read Badass Digest. That whole place hates Into Darkness with so much vile hatred that it's almost comical. As well as Abrams. Farci can't resist posting a new story on how much Abrams is a terrible, awful human being who can't do anything right. Guy isn't that bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot of problems develop because fans have a slavish devotion for the original work and don't understand how things need to be changed when the medium is changed. That's why you end up things like the outcry over the Scouring of the Shire being cut, because while it's the "most important part of the entire trilogy" it's totally a pace killer. Sometimes changes need to be made to make a more enjoyable adaptation or remake but when there are changes made or there are things added at the expense of the source material, it annoys me. The new Hobbit movies for example - I don't mind the additions, at all; I mind that they added things to the story that actively take away screen time and gravitas from perfectly entertaining and perfectly film-able aspects of the source material - it is sheer masturbation on the part of the writers, just like it almost always is. Another example is the myriad comic book movies that invent new characters and stupid story-lines even through they have years and years of good source material to draw on. It's cool if you don't mind the course an adaptation has taken, or if you really love a heavily modified adaptation but don't hate on people who pick it apart and don't like it because they were hoping to see their favorite stories adapted faithfully, rather than have to settle for something that can barely be called an adaptation because the writers and directory wanted to leave their mark or some bullshit. Don't get me wrong, sometimes stuff gets changed from the source material and is a lot cooler or more entertaining but usually that's not the case and I wish more writers and directors had the good sense to know that they just aren't any loving good and shouldn't gently caress with something that was good enough to stand the test of time. "This is my vision for the story! This is how I want to tell it!" gently caress you. If you had any vision you wouldn't be adapting loving comic books and sci-fi that originated in the 60s and 70s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
And if you had any taste you wouldn't be watching it  Star Trek: We Are All The Worst
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Another example is the myriad comic book movies that invent new characters and stupid story-lines even through they have years and years of good source material to draw on. This is kind of fallacious due to the fact that 95% of "years and years of good source material" is dated, un-filmable garbage, at least when it comes to mainstream comics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Even then, taking the repeated criticisms in this thread seriously would mean like 90% of even just the main series (meaning TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise) was a detriment to the all-important canon. EDIT- Didn't see your last reply where you basically said the same thing. You know, honestly, even speaking as a fan of Star Trek I think it would be perfectly fair to say that 90% of all the televised stuff was basically crap that went against the spirit of what made Star Trek good. Half the fun in the franchise is just being able to complain about how bad it is, with the other half being those rare outstanding episodes that actually do a good job raising serious intellectual questions. The reason the franchise got stuck in a rut was because the ratio of bad episodes to good kept increasing with each new series, thanks to the writers deciding to play it safe instead of coming up with genuinely interesting adventures. I think maybe why an apparent failure from Abrams stings more is because he promised he was going to clean up ship and get rid of those attitudes...and now they're just regular action movies with random Star Trek references. This isn't a bad thing by any means. It's just weird to hear it heralded as a triumphant return to Star Trek form when really the franchise was only transformed into something that has to be evaluated on a completely different scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Into Darkness is roughly the same film as Man of Steel, only not as good. It's not egregiously bad or anything. I don't necessarily disagree with your first assessment, but I think it's better than Man of Steel. Air Skwirl fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:You know, honestly, even speaking as a fan of Star Trek I think it would be perfectly fair to say that 90% of all the televised stuff was basically crap that went against the spirit of what made Star Trek good. Half the fun in the franchise is just being able to complain about how bad it is, with the other half being those rare outstanding episodes that actually do a good job raising serious intellectual questions. The reason the franchise got stuck in a rut was because the ratio of bad episodes to good kept increasing with each new series, thanks to the writers deciding to play it safe instead of coming up with genuinely interesting adventures. But I like a lot of that stuff, I don't think its bad at all. Just not what other people seem to want from the franchise. Judging whether the series raises intellectual questions is different than judging how well it works as some kind of window into a believable and consistent possible future world. The latter standard seems to be where most of the complaints about this film are coming from. EDIT - And apparently you didn't even watch the movie. Although I suppse that makes perfect sense; skip the actual movie and get to the part you really enjoy (complaining about how bad it is). quote:It's just weird to hear it heralded as a triumphant return to Star Trek form when really the franchise was only transformed into something that has to be evaluated on a completely different scale. But its not completely different, like you said its in line with 90% of "all the televised stuff". Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:
Eh, 70% of the televised stuff thought that its ideas were its selling point. Many times those ideas were dumb and the execution was dumb, but this new Trek, good as it is, is completely focused on the wow factor being used to execute it competent themes. edit: This excerpt from the film Pentagon Wars perfectly captures how Khan could have been useful to Marcus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA Snak fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
I'm not a Star Trek fan by any means. My criticisms are mainly centered on the massive internal inconsistencies of the plot combined with the completely unscientific way a science-fiction film carries out. It starts after the Starfleet Archives get blown up. The top brass call for a meeting. This is literally all the admirals and rear admirals in Starfleet. Yet for some reason, there isn't an ounce of security either inside the building (guards) or outside (patrol ships). Indeed, Khan is able to fire into the room for several minutes without the smallest interference from either the police or the military. This is about as plausible as the POTUS and the US Army Chiefs of Staff coming together for a meeting with nice, transparent glass windows showing a view of the city and not being protected with helicopters, snipers, the Secret Service, the FBI, etc. But okay, I guess this is year 2259 and maybe the inhabitants of Earth have moved beyond random and unpredictable acts of terrorism. Maybe people are so safe that Starfleet Command was even going to have their meeting at a nearby park, but the weather was bad. Anyway, at that point our suspension of disbelief is still intact and we can overlook the lack of security in this meeting of top military brass. But it gets shattered to pieces shortly after. The movie pays significant attention to the fact that the relationship between Klingon and Earth is very strenuous, which is why the Enterprise needs to stay just outside Klingon space and fire stealth torpedoes at the uninhabited region where Khan is hiding. Then Kirk, feeling the heat from his crew (who rightly point out that firing torpedoes at the Klingons would surely be seen as an act of war) decides to lead a landing party to the surface in what he hopes will be a covert mission. At this point the audience is on the edge of their seats: will the landing party be detected by the Klingons, resulting in war? After barely evading what is originally thought to be a lone Klingon scout ship, Kirk's party is ambushed by the rest of the scout squadron and forced to land. The existence of an entire squadron of Klingons in a supposedly uninhabited region of the planet is never explained. That's apparently not a problem though, since Khan proceeds to slaughter them in what turns out to be his surrender to Kirk. Welp, that was easy. Except now there's a whole bunch of dead Klingons, but that's not a problem because this is some sort of bizarro universe where firing stealth torpedoes at an uninhabited region would be an act of war but killing a bunch of scouts is totally okay. What's hilarious is that this could easily be explained by later showing that Khan actually manipulated the Klingons into sending a party to capture him, timed it so that they would run into and capture Kirk's crew instead, and then came to the "rescue." It would develop his character even further and neatly tie off the Klingon thread in the story. But the writers didn't even bother because they either are frustratingly stupid or have a ton of contempt for the audience. Then there's also the timing of the Enterprise getting blasted "out of warp stream" back into regular space. Sulu says something like, "we're still 200-something-thousand kilometers from our destination!" The moon is 388,000 km away, which means that the Enterprise was literally less than one second away from Earth and closer than the Moon. And yet no one on Earth sees or detects it getting attacked by the Killerprise. (Either that, or it was state-sanctioned death penalty and Earth's defense forces were ordered to not interfere. Which is of course retarded.) Even when the Enterprise starts falling towards Earth (the physics of which are hilariously inaccurate), no one comes to help! Are you loving kidding me. Honestly there's only one reason I would ever watch this film a second time and that is to see Alice Eve in her underwear again. (Too bad her character, who is supposed to be a very intelligent, was not allowed by the writers to have any meaningful impact on the plot. Even when she hails the Killerprise to try to stop her dad from destroying the Enterprise, she's magically beamed to the Killerprise and taken out of that equation. But hey, at least she gets to slap her dad. Such defiance!  )
Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 16:54
|
|
