|
Why the hate on for the blood. Its a recurring theme in the discussion.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
mr. stefan posted: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. Sure plot holes can exist, just nobody has to care so much about them or let them ruin our enjoyment of films. All fictional stories are going to contain clues that they're fictional. Snak posted: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. Snak posted:No, he specifically said that torpedoes won't work without fuel, and he can't determine what these torpedoes used for fuel. Sometimes dialogue is exposition directly telling the audience the facts of the story, but other times its just characters saying what they think, which can be right or wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Sure plot holes can exist, just nobody has to care so much about them or let them ruin our enjoyment of films. All fictional stories are going to contain clues that they're fictional. Yes, but Scotty's two main character traits are that he's an opinionated drunk and that he's really good at engineering. It's incredibly disingenuous to say that Scotty is wrong about torpedoes needing fuel, that would be like Sherlock Holmes being wrong that cars need gas. In addition to this fact, we learn that the torpedoes did have fuel, and it was removed in order to store the prisoners. This means that the torpedoes weren't magically super advanced and didn't need fuel, the had their fuel supplies removed. What torpedoes have fuel but can be fired from one side of a neutral zone and hit the enemy's home planet without it? What the gently caress is the fuel for? It makes no sense, not even in the language of storytelling. What was Admiral Marcus's plan when he gave the torpedoes to Kirk? If he thought that Kirk would follow his orders and shoot the torpedoes, how could they possibly make if from the Federation side of the neutral zone to hit Kronos and kill Khan without fuel? If he knew that kirk would disobey his orders and make contact with Khan and that Khan would realize that his crew is held hostage, what does he gain by that? In the end he just shows up and tries to kill kirk to cover it up, so why did he give kirk the torpedoes in the first place? The torpedoes are the weakest link in the whole movie. It's a decent movie, made out of a bunch of really good scene that are only strung together by the barest thread of plot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
It's been a long time since I saw the film, so did the Admiral even know that Khan had sabotaged the torpedoes by putting people in them and not fuel? Maybe they only need fuel to fly under their own power, but they can still be launched from a ship without it. Even if that one detail is screwy, does it really effect the broader plot at all? Little details like that don't really reduce it to "the barest threads of a plot".
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:It's been a long time since I saw the film, so did the Admiral even know that Khan had sabotaged the torpedoes by putting people in them and not fuel? Well, the torpedoes, and their various roles, are a main element in many important scenes. The mysterious nature of the torpedoes is the catalyst for Scotty's anti militarization-of-Starfleet rant. Kirks orders are to launch a longrange strike on an enemy during a shakey peacetime, using these torpedoes. He is driven by his moral compass to disobey this order even if the advanced torpedoes would prevent the blame falling on him. When one of the torpedoes becomes armed, it's the focal point of a tense disarming scene, which leads to the revelation that there are people inside of them. The torpedoes are like checkov's gun, except that not only is it put on the wall in the first act, it's a major element of every plot twist, and in one scene it's discovered that it's not loaded, and in another it turns out it is, but the fireing pin's been removed and it never could have been shot, which would be fine except that one of the characters who knew the firing pin had been removed planned to have someone else fire it. It's like the movie Basic, with John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson. It is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and it's flaws are in the same vein as Star Trek Into Darkness's, but STID manages to have really good character driven scenes, so it works out okay. JJ Abrams's strength has always been in character moments. Every thing he's been involved in directly has this incredibly visceral feel of the characters emotions literally driving their actions. And he knows how to direct a camera to capture that. He has not demonstrated proficiency at making a coherent story dynamically make these character moments happen. They are always disjointed flashes of genius interrupted by idiot mcguffin plot devices. Sometimes it works anyway, sometimes it doesn't. edit: It's like how in Pulp Fiction, the contents of the briefcase are never shown to the audience, and it doesn't actually matter what's in there. But if there was a scene where Samuel L Jackson looked in the briefcase and was like "This is worthless poo poo, why should we even carry this around" and for that reason he stopped working with Travolta's character, it would all the sudden matter what was in the briefcase. This is what happens when the decided that Scotty's reason for breaking up with Kirk was that the torpedoes had no fuel source so something was fishy. I didn't watch this movie and, like a total nerd, ask "how did they fit dudes in there, they must have had to take something out, and no military engineer would design torpedoes with unnecessary components!" a character in the movie pointed this out to me. A character brought up an issue which impacts the viewer's understanding of the narrative. A nerd who's a character in the movie pointed this out, not me. So if we were not supposed to think to hard about how torpedoes work, maybe they shouldn't have brough up how torpedoes work as a plot point when the torpedoes are a recurring plot element. Snak fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Hmm, well I'd have to re-watch it to see exactly how it all plays out. Again though even if the fuel detail is screwy that doesn't really effect everything else, even with just the torpedoes.Snak posted:Well, the torpedoes, and their various roles, are a main element in many important scenes. The mysterious nature of the torpedoes is the catalyst for Scotty's anti militarization-of-Starfleet rant. Kirks orders are to launch a longrange strike on an enemy during a shakey peacetime, using these torpedoes. He is driven by his moral compass to disobey this order even if the advanced torpedoes would prevent the blame falling on him. When one of the torpedoes becomes armed, it's the focal point of a tense disarming scene, which leads to the revelation that there are people inside of them. I don't really disagree for the most part, but then again JJ Abrams didn't write the script for this film. quote:This is what happens when the decided that Scotty's reason for breaking up with Kirk was that the torpedoes had no fuel source so something was fishy. Both Wikipedia and Memory Alpha say that Scotty resigns because he was not allowed to examine the torpedoes or determine the safety of their fuel source. The way I remember it he is more concerned by that as one sign of Section 31's attitude influencing Starfleet than by the torpedoes themselves. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
So in a movie, if Sherlock Holmes makes a mistake, that's bad writing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Both Wikipedia and Memory Alpha say that Scotty resigns because he was not allowed to examine the torpedoes or determine the safety of their fuel source. The way I remember it he is more concerned by that as one sign of Section 31's attitude influencing Starfleet than by the torpedoes themselves. At that point, Kirk and Spock are the only people who know of Section 31's existence. The dialogue as it plays out in the film: quote:Kirk: I need you to approve those weapons. So Scotty's definitely bothered by the parameters of their mission, but it's pretty clear that he simply refuses to let weapons that he knows nothing about, and can't scan, and is told are of a classified nature, aboard the Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
Snak posted:It's like how in Pulp Fiction, the contents of the briefcase are never shown to the audience, and it doesn't actually matter what's in there. But if there was a scene where Samuel L Jackson looked in the briefcase and was like "This is worthless poo poo, why should we even carry this around" and for that reason he stopped working with Travolta's character, it would all the sudden matter what was in the briefcase. No it wouldn't. That would be hilarious, I wish that scene was in the movie now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
After watching the orignal Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I am convinced that JJ Abrams can't direct his way out of a wet paper bag. I have no idea how he managed to gently caress up the second movie so bad, but hoooly poo poo man it's awful. gently caress you Abrams. If you doubt this compare the original Star Trek: the Motion Picture with his loving horrible reboot and you will understand how awful he really is. Or go watch the last episode of LOST, either way, he is awful. EDIT: I do like how V'ger is supposed to be proto-Borg, that makes Q a giant drat liar. And that is really funny to me. EDIT2: Well that is interesting, Spok just said that resistance is futile. I wonder if it was put in the TNG Borg episodes as an easter egg? Dreadwroth fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Agreed. Abrams has no idea how to properly slow pan across a model for a ten minute long eye candy shot. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Dreadwroth posted:Or go watch the last episode of LOST, either way, he is awful. JJ Abrams had nothing to do with the last episode of Lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Agreed. Abrams has no idea how to properly slow pan across a model for a ten minute long eye candy shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Are you talking about Alice Eve or a spaceship? Haha. Both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:JJ Abrams had nothing to do with the last episode of Lost. Pffff, don't you know that the executive producer personally writes and directs every episode of a show?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Abrams had as much control of the Lost Finale as Gene Roddenberry had of the most recent movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Corek posted:Abrams had as much control of the Lost Finale as Gene Roddenberry had of the most recent movie. So you mean their shadows loom large over the projects they started?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Agreed. Abrams has no idea how to properly slow pan across a model for a ten minute long eye candy shot. Uhh, that shot/sequence is amazing. I also think it could be said pretty irrefutably that Robert Wise is a Better Director than Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:
It could be said pretty irrefutably that Spielberg is a better director than Abrams but that doesn't mean Kingdom of the Crystal Skull or Warhorse is a better film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Uhh, that shot/sequence is amazing. I love that shot and the one of Spock floating towards Vger and the rest of that movie. I was making a joke in response to a content free poo poo post. I don't see how just watching a film with very different style, plot, and theme can prove Abrams is a poo poo director.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
I don't believe the direction is the sole problem with these movies, but the scripts and stories they choose to go with, too. Sort of like the Transformers movies: They look good, there's a lot of great action, but the story, and the dialog and the scripts kill those films. I don't know how much of that falls on the director. I guess you could argue that's the script he signed off on directing, and as a director he has the choice to film that script in whatever way he sees fit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I don't believe the direction is the sole problem with these movies, but the scripts and stories they choose to go with, too. Transformers's best quality, beside its effects, is the writing. The scripts are genuinely hilarious on paper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Keith Urban and Karl Urban are different people. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Finally watched Into Darkness again and I figured out what was annoying me about Cumberbatch's acting. Does the guy always talk like he is trying to pop his ears/unhinge his jaw? It almost looked like he was trying to get someone in a car in the next lane to lip-read what he was saying. Did anyone else pick up on that, or am I just seeing things?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Finally watched Into Darkness again and I figured out what was annoying me about Cumberbatch's acting. Does the guy always talk like he is trying to pop his ears/unhinge his jaw? It almost looked like he was trying to get someone in a car in the next lane to lip-read what he was saying. Did anyone else pick up on that, or am I just seeing things? Nope, I remember thinking he stood out as overacting in a movie full of people overacting. He talks like he's trying to eat Chris Pine's head. A hammy villain is good but it made me uncomfortable instead of being cool like Hans Gruber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Nope, I remember thinking he stood out as overacting in a movie full of people overacting. He talks like he's trying to eat Chris Pine's head. A hammy villain is good but it made me uncomfortable instead of being cool like Hans Gruber. i actually like cumberbatch, just him made me go and see the movie 2 times when it ran in the cinemas, however i do agree on hans, he does beat cumberbatch by a few miles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
I haven't watched it since seeing it in theaters, but I remember his ADR being really distracting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Finally watched Into Darkness again and I figured out what was annoying me about Cumberbatch's acting. Does the guy always talk like he is trying to pop his ears/unhinge his jaw? It almost looked like he was trying to get someone in a car in the next lane to lip-read what he was saying. Did anyone else pick up on that, or am I just seeing things? Yes, I noticed him over-exaggerating his mouth when talking, too, especially on the "No ship should go down without her captain" line. Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan really is one of the more baffling casting decisions I've ever seen. The guy's obviously a fine actor and his performance has its own enjoyable qualities, but I still look at it and think, "How in the world did we end up with THAT?" I also wonder how Benicio Del Toro would have played it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 20:58
|
|
lizardman posted:I also wonder how Benicio Del Toro would have played it. Doctor Gonzo in space.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
lizardman posted:Yes, I noticed him over-exaggerating his mouth when talking, too, especially on the "No ship should go down without her captain" line. Better in every conceivable way, which is startling considering how poorly scripted Khan is. He's a walking plot device, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I think Abrhams was a fine director for the reboot of Star Trek as a more fast paced action oriented franchise. I mean at least he understands some of the basics of film such as giving characters emotional motivations, trying to have some kind of arc to the film, etc. All you have to do is look at the Star Wars prequels to get a sense of how a big budget science fiction movie can gently caress those things up. The problem with this movie was the script. There was an emotional core to the movie (though, as I've complained repeatedly, it was basically the same emotional arc for all the characters as the first movie, which really speaks to the limitations of the movie, especially given that its like the third or fourth Star Trek movie in a row that is basically just aping the emotional beats of Wrath of Khan) but the actual plot was just an excuse to move the characters from one scene to the next. I really wish they would have done a more plot driven film or maybe something about the Enterprise beginning its 5 year mission and exploring some new area of space. The fact that they made another over the top revenge plot movie seems really cynical, not to mention being incredibly dull.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I think Abrhams was a fine director for the reboot of Star Trek as a more fast paced action oriented franchise. I mean at least he understands some of the basics of film such as giving characters emotional motivations, trying to have some kind of arc to the film, etc. Its unfortunate that none of that showed up in either of the movies. I think it might be Abrams, though, I've not enjoyed any move he's directed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Abrams definitely provides emotional motivations for his characters in both Star Trek films. They may not be particularly deep or nuanced but its ridiculous to claim they aren't there. Like I said, watch a genuinely awful movie like The Phantom Menace if you want to see an example of a movie that legitimately lacks any emotional connection. In both films Kirk has to deal with father issues, immaturity, inability to play by the rules, etc. Spock has trouble expressing his emotions despite being filled with rage and sadness, Ahura.... well actually Ahura doesn't have much character or ac beyond being inexplicably in love with Spock, who is such a complete rear end in a top hat that its never clear why anyone likes him. These are pretty simplistic emotions for a movie to be dealing with and I would have liked it if they'd gone deeper (or better yet tried something new), but its not really accurate to say they aren't pleasant at all. I really think the problem with STID is the lack of originality and the general stupidity of the plot itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:In both films Kirk has to deal with father issues, immaturity, inability to play by the rules, etc. Spock has trouble expressing his emotions despite being filled with rage and sadness, Ahura.... well actually Ahura doesn't have much character or ac beyond being inexplicably in love with Spock, who is such a complete rear end in a top hat that its never clear why anyone likes him. It makes sense in the first one in which, on a ship of teenagers and fratty bros like my boy Kirk, Spock's sort of a calm, confident, poised center to it all. He's got issues but he's basically a good guy trying. It frays in the second when he gets extra emotionally stunted and turns into a big dumb dickhead baby.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
penismightier posted:It makes sense in the first one in which, on a ship of teenagers and fratty bros like my boy Kirk, Spock's sort of a calm, confident, poised center to it all. He's got issues but he's basically a good guy trying. It frays in the second when he gets extra emotionally stunted and turns into a big dumb dickhead baby. Spock is emotionally stunted. One of the nicer points of Abrams' films is that that they show how being raised Vulcan has done a total number on Spock. He has spent his entire life repressing his emotions and has never learned how to express them. He's basically a sociopath. That's what makes the "Khaaan!" scream work. It is the proper emotional response as it plays out perfectly the inversion of the original scene and shows that Spock is learning from the guy who is trying to teach him how to be human.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Spock is emotionally stunted. One of the nicer points of Abrams' films is that that they show how being raised Vulcan has done a total number on Spock. He has spent his entire life repressing his emotions and has never learned how to express them. He's basically a sociopath. That's what makes the "Khaaan!" scream work. It is the proper emotional response as it plays out perfectly the inversion of the original scene and shows that Spock is learning from the guy who is trying to teach him how to be human. Also note that Spock, bathed in blue (logic), raises his head into the (yellow) light for his emotional outburst. Lots of pathos and logos, yellow and blue, Kirk and Spock dichotomy in this movie. Check out Pike's death - Spock in blue melds with his mind, and feels his passing. Kirk in yellow runs up, checks his pulse. In the same way that his Vulcan upbringing has Spock totally wrapped up in himself (his emotions from the first movie actually caused him to run from them in this movie, arresting his development and turning him into the aforementioned big dumb dickhead baby neckbeard (("I choose not to feel")), Kirk's lack of a stable home and life has made him completely rely on himself and his gut, without taking logic into account. So, tying it in with the Abrams talk, he's got mise en scène down, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
If vger had the Pioneer plaques embedded on itself how did it not realize it was made by humans? Seems like a pretty obvious mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Spock is emotionally stunted. One of the nicer points of Abrams' films is that that they show how being raised Vulcan has done a total number on Spock. He has spent his entire life repressing his emotions and has never learned how to express them. He's basically a sociopath. That's what makes the "Khaaan!" scream work. It is the proper emotional response as it plays out perfectly the inversion of the original scene and shows that Spock is learning from the guy who is trying to teach him how to be human. I get that on paper and I think it works well as a concept, but the execution didn't figure out how to balance that petulance with the story. It made him less interesting instead of working as a captivating character flaw like in the first film. I was annoyed whenever Spock came on screen because I knew it'd be a grind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I get that on paper and I think it works well as a concept, but the execution didn't figure out how to balance that petulance with the story. It made him less interesting instead of working as a captivating character flaw like in the first film. I was annoyed whenever Spock came on screen because I knew it'd be a grind. Fair enough. I felt it worked well and Quinto played the character as physically tortured by his own warped psyche.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
YO when odo shapeshifts into his uniform is he also making his comm badge out of himself? does that mean he can create other types of sophisticated machinery? could he become a working photon torpedo? a warp core? a starship? a borg, complete with nanomachines? edit: well, wrong trek thread, but please feel free to discuss
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 03:29
|
|
