|
Hbomberguy posted:The ability to fly through in a spaceship is literally the same thing, only 'more plausible' because for some reason modern humans are more capable of imagining someone inventing, designing, funding and building a gigantic functioning ship with pseudo-magical components that allow it to support life, create food and energy, navigate untold vastnesses of space and survive asteroids and comets and other horrifyingly-dangerous space junk to the point where it can have dogfights with alien life, who also managed to build all this implausible crap, than they are of imagining one guy having the ability to *gasp* make fire. All those things are infinitely more plausible (given sufficient time) than a person conjuring a ball of fire out of thin air using willpower and arcane words. You'd have to be an incredible cretin to believe otherwise. To give you an idea: we have already landed people on the Moon and there's a good chance we will be able to do the same with Mars in the next 50 years. In contrast, who in the entire history of the human race has been able to conjure so much as a loving spark from their hands using no aides (weapons, tools, objects, etc.)? Which one of the following is more likely in the next 1000 years: a) humanity becoming a spacefaring race b) humanity becoming a magic-using, fireball-casting race Plz respond.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:All those things are infinitely more plausible (given sufficient time) than a person conjuring a ball of fire out of thin air using willpower and arcane words. You'd have to be an incredible cretin to believe otherwise. There is absolutely no way to generate artificial gravity in the way portrayed in 99% of science fiction, that's literally on the same level as generating a fireball. Oh and the funny thing is that science-fiction does pretty commonly use what's essentially magic, they just call it "augments" or "genetic engineering" to explain why a dude can shoot lightning or looks like a Chimera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh and the funny thing is that science-fiction does pretty commonly use what's essentially magic, they just call it "augments" or "genetic engineering" to explain why a dude can shoot lightning or looks like a Chimera. Don't worry, when I watch X-Men I pretend I'm watching a fantasy movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There is absolutely no way to generate artificial gravity in the way portrayed in 99% of science fiction Sure, we have zero way of replicating that in real life. But that's a pretty strong statement considering that our knowledge concerning how gravity is created and manipulated is still seriously lacking. Unless, of course, I missed some huge breakthrough in physics recently. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Don't worry, when I watch X-Men I pretend I'm watching a fantasy movie. You are. Superheroes are the subgenre that most clearly illustrates how vague and arbitrary is the border between science fiction and fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Sure, we have zero way of replicating that in real life. Our knowledge of relativity is also still seriously lacking but that doesn't make time travel a legitimate technology either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
While its true that Magic and Advanced technology serve similar narrative purposes more often than not, the main thematic difference to understand is that magic, when used, is explicitly identified as making the impossible possible, whereas advanced technology is used as a shorthand for knowledge man has not yet come to understand, and the difference, while small, comes with a fuckton of weighty implication: the former is by its nature defiance of understood consistency, while the latter implies an internal consistency to exist, however alien it may be. When magic enters into a story, the audience is conditioned to believe that magic can do anything except what it is explicitly stated to be unable of doing, such as the Genie in aladdin needing to define that he cannot bring the dead back to life, etc. Advanced technology on the other hand is expected by the audience to only be able to do what it is shown to do. When the DeLorean gains the ability to fly it's explicitly the result of modifications made in the future, and if this had not been implied people would have lost their poo poo because being able to fly has no bearing or relation to the DeLorean's primary utility of time travel. When Gandalf suddenly generates a force field that the Balrog cannot penetrate despite never displaying that capability before, nobody cares because it's Gandalf, he's a loving wizard, do you know what the limits on wizards are because I sure loving don't. To put it in more succinct terms, Sci Fi runs on the justification of "this is impossible by our understanding, but we don't understand everything, do we?" while fantasy runs on the justification of "This is impossible, but magic doesn't give a gently caress." The difference is effectively an illusion, yes, something with no practical bearing on the events and themes of a story unless directly addressed, but the smallest things often make the biggest difference.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:While its true that Magic and Advanced technology serve similar narrative purposes more often than not, the main thematic difference to understand is that magic, when used, is explicitly identified as making the impossible possible, whereas advanced technology is used as a shorthand for knowledge man has not yet come to understand, and the difference, while small, comes with a fuckton of weighty implication: the former is by its nature defiance of understood consistency, while the latter implies an internal consistency to exist, however alien it may be. When magic enters into a story, the audience is conditioned to believe that magic can do anything except what it is explicitly stated to be unable of doing, such as the Genie in aladdin needing to define that he cannot bring the dead back to life, etc. Advanced technology on the other hand is expected by the audience to only be able to do what it is shown to do. When the DeLorean gains the ability to fly it's explicitly the result of modifications made in the future, and if this had not been implied people would have lost their poo poo because being able to fly has no bearing or relation to the DeLorean's primary utility of time travel. When Gandalf suddenly generates a force field that the Balrog cannot penetrate despite never displaying that capability before, nobody cares because it's Gandalf, he's a loving wizard, do you know what the limits on wizards are because I sure loving don't. Plenty of magic systems are essentially glorified chemistry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Which one of the following is more likely in the next 1000 years: The latter. Literally the latter. Edit: At least with the latter, you can technically 'through willpower' create fire using real use of the elements and other natural sciences. It, and I admit I'm really stretching it, is possible in the further realms of rationale. With the former, you have to assume that not only can we design the effectively magic devices required to travel through space, but also learn to tolerate each other enough to operate them while travelling through space. I am an optimist, but I do not see that as particularly possible as long as people decide who is smarter than who based on which bizarre fictional setting is (I AM LITERALLY MAKING MASSIVE FINGERQUOTES WITH ONE HAND AS I TYPE THIS) more plausible. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The latter. Literally the latter. Okay brother.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
As long as you hand wave it with "oh yeah, nano machines are causing a reaction in the air" you can totally have a man shooting fireballs, because that's just science fiction!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:While its true that Magic and Advanced technology serve similar narrative purposes more often than not, the main thematic difference to understand is that magic, when used, is explicitly identified as making the impossible possible, whereas advanced technology is used as a shorthand for knowledge man has not yet come to understand, and the difference, while small, comes with a fuckton of weighty implication: the former is by its nature defiance of understood consistency, while the latter implies an internal consistency to exist, however alien it may be. When magic enters into a story, the audience is conditioned to believe that magic can do anything except what it is explicitly stated to be unable of doing, such as the Genie in aladdin needing to define that he cannot bring the dead back to life, etc. Advanced technology on the other hand is expected by the audience to only be able to do what it is shown to do. When the DeLorean gains the ability to fly it's explicitly the result of modifications made in the future, and if this had not been implied people would have lost their poo poo because being able to fly has no bearing or relation to the DeLorean's primary utility of time travel. When Gandalf suddenly generates a force field that the Balrog cannot penetrate despite never displaying that capability before, nobody cares because it's Gandalf, he's a loving wizard, do you know what the limits on wizards are because I sure loving don't. This is a BS distinction. There are plenty of scifi settings where technology does whatever needs to be done and plenty of fantasy settings where magic follows very strict sets of rules. And we've been throwing fireballs for ages. They're called bombs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:The beginning of your post says that but then the rest of your post says otherwise. What makes the film "dumb and poorly scripted" besides a failure to be serious (tonally and stylistically), realistic, and consistent? You mention lack of originality, sure, but still most of your complaints are about exactly those things. I say that the movie is poorly scripted because it repeatedly has the characters performing actions that don't make any sense within the context of the fictional universe. Based on what has been established just within the Into Darkness movie it makes no sense that Scotty would be able to sneak his transport shuttle into the cargo bay of a top secret military ship. Likewise when, early in the movie, we're told that firing missiles at the Klingon home world might cause a war, only to later have this plot point entirely ignored despite the Enterprise crew killing numerous Klingon's on their own home world, that is an example of poor scripting. Similarly when Khan has all these bizarre and abilities like being able to design the perfect star ship, the perfect missile, and when his blood can magically heal any organism of any disease including radiation poisoning, this really comes off as a lazy decision by script writers who didn't really care about making a plot driven movie. They just wanted to make it as easy and convenient as possible to jump from one action sequence to the next. quote:You don't like my explanations because you want something from them that they cannot provide. My explanations there are my interpretations of what the film is telling us or implying about how this fictional world works. Whether the real world works that way (it doesn't) is beside the point. I don't care how you think real Klingons would act, because there are no real Klingons. Ok but there's a basic rule in storytelling called "Chekov's gun". When you make a big point out of the fact that action X (violating Klingon territorial sovereignty) will lead to consequence Y (a war) then its really lame to have the characters perform action X only to have... nothing happen. I'm not saying that it had to be a war, it could have been some totally unpredictable end result, but it should have been addressed. The failure to deal with that plot point after it had been raised early in the film is why I would say this film was poorly scripted. I think people who enjoyed the movie are simply willing to overlook the bad scripting because they enjoyed the acting, the action sequences or other elements of the work. quote:So no, in real life a dude from 200 years ago would probably not be particularly useful for designing modern weapons, and the same goes for your other complaints there. Your intelligence is not being insulted by the inclusion of stuff like that, but rather you're being trusted to understand the difference between fiction and reality. An intelligent viewer should be able to understand that not every plot point or aspect in a fictional world is trying to tell us, the audience, that's how the real world actually works- that would be dumb. When Star Trek establishes that the Federation represents the pinnacle of man's technological advancement and then violates that by having a dude from the pre-Warp era inventing ships that are not only comparable but in fact vastly superior in every way to the Federation's star ships then that destroys any internal consistency or suspension of disbelief that the movie franchise had. When its established that a ship is super technologically advanced and is a highly guarded secret, only to have a character sneak on board in the most blatant and ridiculous way possible, then that destroys the internal consistency and coherence of the movie. Obviously movies can and do take huge amounts of artistic license when portraying a fictional setting, but what bothered me about this movie was that everything that happened seemed to happen purely in the service of moving everything along at a super fast pace. It was like a big magic trick where Abram's tries to dazzle your attention with flashy action sequences so that you won't stop and think about how the character's actions make very little sense even within the context of the fictional universe Abram's has created. Now I'll admit that if I hadn't also hated the actual plot of the film then I guess that maybe this stuff would have bothered me less. But the plot also seems to me to indicate how poorly scripted this film was. Why is it that every single Star Trek movie, going back to the last Next Gen movie, now has to be the same stale and boring revenge melodrama? The whole "dude with a super powerful ship and a personal vendetta takes away something the hero valued, causing the hero to also want revenge, and leading to an important character sacrificing themselves" has now been done three times in a row. I get why they used that story during the first movie because they had a lot of work to do establishing the characters and setting up the universe and bringing in new audience members. But the fact they cared so little about the plot that they basically just repeated this story for the sequel really speaks to a lack of originality or bravery. This second film was a real opportunity to expand the themes of the franchise or to return to the more light hearted exploration themes of the original series. Or hell, even if they had just gone with the geopolitical themes that were raised at the start of the film and done a movie about a Federation conflict with the Klingons... that would have been so much more interested than a literal repeat of the previous film's plot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:When Star Trek establishes that the Federation represents the pinnacle of man's technological advancement and then violates that by having a dude from the pre-Warp era inventing ships that are not only comparable but in fact vastly superior in every way to the Federation's star ships then that destroys any internal consistency or suspension of disbelief that the movie franchise had. I'm pretty sure if you had let Da Vinci or Edison catch up to scientific methods they could design some pretty nasty things as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Okay brother. Only in your wildest fantasies are we related. So in your case that means we'll also be in spaceships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:we're told that firing missiles at the Klingon home world might cause a war, only to later have this plot point entirely ignored despite the Enterprise crew killing numerous Klingon's on their own home world, that is an example of poor scripting. Actually, firing missiles at a planet from a warship is different from sneaking onto a planet in a neutral shuttle, having a confused firefight with a bunch of meathead troops (with basically no witnesses left behind), and then sneaking back out. The Klingons may never figure out what exactly happened during that fight, because it was small scale. Quite a bit different from 72 warheads slamming into one of your former cities. Plus, it's already been established numerous times that sensors in the JJ movies aren't the godly sensors that exist in TNG and beyond. Hell, in the first movie they literally don't realize the fleet at Vulcan was destroyed until they come out of warp right on top of it. Scotty sneaking into the secret facility further supports this, as does the Klingons not immediately seeing the Enterprise on the edge of their space. It's really not poor plotting. It's more a problem with you not accepting the setting as it's presented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Only in your wildest fantasies are we related. Yep. Only one of us can conjure
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not going to argue that FTL travel is more plausible than the spontaneous creation of fire through pure will, but you miss a lot of interesting differences if you dismiss them as "literally the same thing." The difference isn't that FTL is more plausible, it's that the justification for its existence is predicated upon science and engineering, not the corruption of nature, a connection to the divine, etc. (various standard associations with magic). Professor X using his telepathy because of evolution and The Shadow clouding men's minds through mystical "eastern" techniques are equally implausible, but the differing explanation for them gives them different meaning. The Shadow came back from his travels a different man; Professor X was "born that way." Tony Stark inventing the Iron Man power armor instead of wishing it into existence tells us something about how his trials should be interpreted in relation to the real world. I agree with you, the different elements can certainly serve different purposes in a story - however, often they can serve the same purpose. Tony Stark could have been someone who, through intensive study of some magic book or other, learned how to manifest his body into metal or something similar. I'm not saying that's literally the same thing, obviously it's not, but I'm trying to demonstrate that fantasy and science fiction, or Tolkien VS Space, can essentially achieve the same things - hell, Tolkien strove for utter 'realism' in many senses of the word, just in a world where magic also happened to exist, just in the same sense Kubrick tried to have complete realism in space in 2001, but in much the same way within the confines of a fiction in which spacecraft existed. I guess what I'm trying to say is the differences are purely tactile, you can postulate anything happening in either because it's still all fiction, it's fine to have a preference for one over the other but I'm not a fan of 'Hard Sci Fi' fans who seem to think they're special (this isn't aimed at Camel, I'm really using his posts as an excuse to engage with a sentiment I see a lot in my own spheres) because, in a ridiculously farcical direct comparison, they find one implausible thing is 'more realistic/likely/probable/accurate' than another implausible thing their ideology has deemed 'impossible'. I don't hate science fiction, I probably prefer it to straight fantasy in some ways, but nothing in Star Trek has ever really been accurate except rudimentary stuff. Even Kubrick got things wrong / still in the end had to postulate all sorts of things we might not actually be able to invent (hey camel, in 2001 the events that take place towards the end might be just straight-up magic - in a story that strove for a semblance of 'accuracy!' - good artists are aware of this inextricable link between forms of fantasy. The old quote "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is fantastic because it not only highlights that, cross-culturally, magic and technology can be the same thing in different forms ('magic healing potions' in many early cultures do in fact have scientifically sound reasons for being so effective, our technology now might as well be magic to them) but because it latently means the purposes they serve in fiction can be the same. If you want to split hairs about tactical realism, stay away from books. And movies. And fiction. Stick to, I dunno, space development or something. Build me a spaceship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I guess what I'm trying to say is the differences are purely tactile, you can postulate anything happening in either because it's still all fiction, it's fine to have a preference for one over the other but I'm not a fan of 'Hard Sci Fi' fans who seem to think they're special (this isn't aimed at Camel, I'm really using his posts as an excuse to engage with a sentiment I see a lot in my own spheres) because, in a ridiculously farcical direct comparison, they find one implausible thing is 'more realistic/likely/probable/accurate' than another implausible thing their ideology has deemed 'impossible'. Yeah, there's nothing you can do in fantasy in terms of what the characters are capable of that you can't do in science fiction by writing it a little differently. In terms of "hard sci fi," though, I think there's value in that sort of element. 2001 benefits from having both the trippy big-think sci-fi and the grounded gravity-wheels. Plausibility can be leveraged to interesting effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
The whole derail about the difference between magic fireballs and hard sci-fi , which I guess I sorta started, isn't really relevant anymore because any way we're looking at it Star Trek still is not and never has been hard sci-fi. Like just TOS alone is full of magical God-like beings, and then the main arc of TNG is all about Q who is totally a near-omnipotent space magician. Not to mentions nearly everything else in the series. It's space fantasy, sometimes with social commentary (mostly on the present day, not the future) and often with a healthy dose of camp. Helsing posted:lots of stuff I don't disagree with you that it would be nice to see the plotting of this new series take more risks and go outside that same revenge formula. Although you can see the clear similarities with the other films as also highlighting the many differences in how that basic formula is handled in each take. As for the rest, though, the main point of disagreement between us seems to be over what constitutes establishing of the diegetic rules or internal logic. Like to me the exposition that Khan can create weapons that the Federation can't is the film establishing that aspect of the conflict. It doesn't really matter whether that would make sense in real life because its just another one of many, many deviations from real life that is established as part of the film's world. Same goes for most of those other complaints. Also all fiction fundamentally relies on tricks, and suspension of disbelief is all about being distracted from the points where the diegesis loses coherency. Those are both true of all fictional films and so they shouldn't really be the basis of criticism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I say that the movie is poorly scripted because it repeatedly has the characters performing actions that don't make any sense within the context of the fictional universe. Based on what has been established just within the Into Darkness movie it makes no sense that Scotty would be able to sneak his transport shuttle into the cargo bay of a top secret military ship. Likewise when, early in the movie, we're told that firing missiles at the Klingon home world might cause a war, only to later have this plot point entirely ignored despite the Enterprise crew killing numerous Klingon's on their own home world, that is an example of poor scripting. I think you mischaracterize a lot of the aspects of the film here to bolster your point. First off, a relatively small scale firefight against an unknown foe is very different than a known enemy raining six dozen missiles down on you. Note though that the Klingon's reaction to a small unknown trade vessel showing up unannounced does actually reinforce the idea that they'd react violently to any invasion of their soveriegnty. I agree that we should see further reaction from the Klingons, but considering the breakneck pace of this movie and the fact that it is part of an ongoing franchise, I am fine with that thread being left dangling for another film. Your descriptions of Khan's torpedoes and ship being perfect don't follow from the film. The torpedoes are tampered with and don't even work as intended, hardly perfect weapons. Vengeance's apparent strength, its tiny crew, becomes its greatest weakness when three men are able to capture it, and a madman is able to control it by himself. And nowhere is Starfleet established as the pinnacle of human achievement. In fact, based on the continuity this film and its prequel invoke, humanity has a ways to go. This is reinforced by the structural flaws within Starfleet that this film points to. And again, this film is a geopolitical allegory. It looks at the War on Terror, not the Cold War, and it takes short cuts to keep that allegory in focus, but there is a great deal more to it than just a mad rush from one action sequence to the next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I think you mischaracterize a lot of the aspects of the film here to bolster your point. First off, a relatively small scale firefight against an unknown foe is very different than a known enemy raining six dozen missiles down on you. Is it not explained that the torpedoes have stealth technology and would therefore not be detected by the Klingons? So to them it would look like random explosions that happened in the uninhabited region of their planet. As a side note, another thing that struck me as unfortunate about the scene where Uhura is reasoning with the Klingon scout leader and just as it is starting to look like she might convince him, Khan starts slaughtering the Klingons. It is one of the many parts in the film where a woman is literally not allowed by the writers to have any meaningful contribution or effect on the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:As a side note, another thing that struck me as unfortunate about the scene where Uhura is reasoning with the Klingon scout leader and just as it is starting to look like she might convince him, Khan starts slaughtering the Klingons. It is one of the many parts in the film where a woman is literally not allowed by the writers to have any meaningful contribution or effect on the story. Wasn't he pulling his knife on her when Khan came in shooting? I definitely didn't get the impression her negotiations were working out, and I seem to recall Kirk and company were preparing to start shooting right as Khan attacked. Mind you, Uhura did an insanely good job with her end of negotiations, it's just that, well, Klingons are always of somewhat variable honor, and the TOS era had 'em definitely on the lower end of the scale. I don't think the admiral was precisely WRONG about a war being likely (only reason there wasn't one in TOS is a bunch of god-like aliens said "not happening"), just the solution was demonstrated to be worse than the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:As a side note, another thing that struck me as unfortunate about the scene where Uhura is reasoning with the Klingon scout leader and just as it is starting to look like she might convince him, Khan starts slaughtering the Klingons. It is one of the many parts in the film where a woman is literally not allowed by the writers to have any meaningful contribution or effect on the story. As opposed to figuratively not allowed? I'm more upset that the Klingons were portrayed as mindless, warmongering monsters obsessed with honor. They're executed without mercy - and it's portrayed in a positive light! - by the loving antagonist. That's how low they are in this movie. Terrible character assassination. Now that's And don't get me started on this movie's treatment of Roylas
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
There's an important nuance there: Khan pops up the instant Kirk pulls his gun. As with Kirk reawakening the instant Khan is knocked out, there's an implicit connection drawn between the two. The Klingon pulling his knife is an unreadable symbolic gesture, like when Kirk 'preemptively' shoots Khan later in the film. There's a lot of acting on incomplete information in the film, tied to Kirk's admission that he has no clue what he's doing. In this sense, it's exactly the case that Uhura is interrupted - but she's interrupted by the the bad guys: Khan, and the 'darkness' inside Kirk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
I still wished the Klingons had been presented as more the Cold War character of TOS mixed with a bit of the physical presence of the TNG era. I think it's really sort of missed opportunity to maybe show off the Klingons as something other than just space warriors and sort of give them a bit more depth and danger. Around the time the movie was getting released I ended up reading an old 80s era Trek novel called Enterprise: The First Adventure and while I didn't really have all that much interest in the story and the A-plot, I really did enjoy how a lot of the characterization was done for these 'young' versions of pre-TOS Kirk and others. We see sort of a basis of the Spock/McCoy antagonism, some insight into the secondary cast, Kirk LISTENING to someone about following orders and building up a reputation of respect and trust that will help him get away with being a cowboy later on, etc. Admittedly, it's nothing that could be done with those characters in the second film to redefine their relationships, but I think fleshing out the cast a bit more could have only helped. All in all, I think a lot of the film could have been cut out and replaced with something else. Even the concept of Kirk and Spock being stranded in Klingon-held territory while Sulu and the rest of the crew dealt with a space situation was done in TOS, if I recall correctly. This film even sets up just such a similar premise in the first 45 minutes or so that they could have just redone that sort of plot and just written Khan and Carol out of the plot entirely. You could still keep your whole Evil Admiral plot in there by having Marcus intentionally putting Kirk in what he thinks is a 'no-win' scenario that he knows will result in giving him the justification for starting a war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:When Gandalf suddenly generates a force field that the Balrog cannot penetrate despite never displaying that capability before, nobody cares because it's Gandalf, he's a loving wizard, do you know what the limits on wizards are because I sure loving don't. For those in the know, Gandalf and the rest of the wizards are actually mother loving gods!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's an important nuance there: Khan pops up the instant Kirk pulls his gun. As with Kirk reawakening the instant Khan is knocked out, there's an implicit connection drawn between the two. This is pretty drat spot-on. We don't always agree on things, but drat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:This is pretty drat spot-on. We don't always agree on things, but drat. Ditto. In a broader sense, it's also that diplomacy is interrupted by violence. Not just from source, but violence in general. The klingon is pulling a knife and Khan and Kirk start shooting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
On top of that, the final speech broad-strokes it - "war is necessary, but there are bad people who are violent for the wrong reasons/too violent who you shouldn't pay heed to / let run amok" is what he's technically saying. However the real implication is that while war is necessary, one of the greatest threats in any war is what it turns you into. Khan's real agenda is the destruction of all inferior life. This is only barely brought up because it's already tacit in everything that happens in the movie - Marcus tried to channel the inner, selfish, xenophobic, destructive evil (represented as Khan) for his own possibly benevolent benefit, AKA protecting mankind from a genuine threat. The trouble is that war and violence work best when channeled humanistically. People are upset when they find out about abu ghraib or the footage of soldiers pissing on corpses because for a war to be just, you can't simply be the monster that kills other monsters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Is it not explained that the torpedoes have stealth technology and would therefore not be detected by the Klingons? So to them it would look like random explosions that happened in the uninhabited region of their planet. Doesn't this explanation come from Marcus? He wants a war with the Klingons, so we shouldn't trust what he says about the torpedoes' stealth capability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Doesn't this explanation come from Marcus? He wants a war with the Klingons, so we shouldn't trust what he says about the torpedoes' stealth capability. PLUS HE TOOK THE FUEL OUT OF THE TORPEDOES SO HOW WOULD THEY EVEN HAVE WORKED. That is the biggest problem I have with the movie, so much hinges on those torpedoes and not a single thing about how they are used both to hide people in and be torpedoes made any sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 01:39
|
|
Snak posted:PLUS HE TOOK THE FUEL OUT OF THE TORPEDOES SO HOW WOULD THEY EVEN HAVE WORKED. That is the biggest problem I have with the movie, so much hinges on those torpedoes and not a single thing about how they are used both to hide people in and be torpedoes made any sense. Really, people are quick to shut down accusations of "plot hole" as just nerds being nerds, but Into Darkness legitimately suffers from multiple points where it fails to maintain internal consistency within its own runtime and it suffers as a result.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Snak posted:PLUS HE TOOK THE FUEL OUT OF THE TORPEDOES SO HOW WOULD THEY EVEN HAVE WORKED. That is the biggest problem I have with the movie, so much hinges on those torpedoes and not a single thing about how they are used both to hide people in and be torpedoes made any sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_first_law#Newton.27s_first_law
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
But they had fuel before. Scotty, who's job is to be the best engineer, specifically says that torpedoes need fuel, establishing for the audience that this is true in the trek universe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Since they are brand new experimental-type missiles that nobody can see inside, Scotty assumed they needed lots of fuel but was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
No, he specifically said that torpedoes won't work without fuel, and he can't determine what these torpedoes used for fuel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
They are fuelled by superblood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Snak posted:No, he specifically said that torpedoes won't work without fuel, and he can't determine what these torpedoes used for fuel. The three options are that they have an alternate fuel source, Khan removed the fuel when no-one was looking, or they were simply designed to detonate inside the Enterprise all along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The three options are that they have an alternate fuel source, Khan removed the fuel when no-one was looking, or they were simply designed to detonate inside the Enterprise all along. Or that the magical blood that can heal both tribbles and humans can also power a space torpedo. Would that make the superblood the anti-Thing? Something that 'patches up' subjective reality instead of threatening to tear it apart and expose The Real?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 06:08
|
|