|
There's no prohibition on discussion of creator intent.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
There was never a prohibition on discussion of creator intent. However, if you think it's the end all be all of an argument, don't be surprised when people disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:How come there's no thread on film theory, since it seems to come up so often in various threads? Was there one before but it didn't work out? Because apparently you're crazy if you think things about film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:But Kirk being a big ham happens far away from the emotional centerpiece of WoK, whereas in this one it happens during it. That just makes his point for him.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
I have to say I actually thought that was pretty clever to shoot Alice Eve's body in the same way they would lay out a scene of a majestic nebula or something. The real final frontier: a woman immune to his charms. It doesn't work without the requisite "hot green babes" scene, and Zoe Saldana's nonverbal acting showing that Kirk doesn't even cross her mind (the three leads have really good chemistry).
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Hopefully this builds to the point in the third film to expose that the only woman Kirk truly loves is the Enterprise. Now that they've blown off the green babes gag, where do you go from there anyway?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:They made a big deal of defending DC, including AA batteries and jet patrols, after 9/11. This is a little bit of a stretch, given what came of that.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Operative word "after." As in after 9/11 and after Khan's first two attacks on Earth. I'm saying that the former was bullshit - there's good reasons why The Pentagon isn't particularly strongly defended to begin with outside of the design of the building itself. This didn't change appreciably after 9/11, even a month after.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Every person who is successful enough at what they do to become a household name is hailed as a genius at some point or another. I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
I find it hard to take them updating Khan's look from Rod Stewart to Morrisey as "whitewashing", since the original depiction and premise of the character is so ludicrous to begin with (despite the iconic depiction by the great Ricardo Montalban).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that a guy like Ricardo Montalban playing a guy named Khan is already iffy - I'm referring to a Mexican "passing" for someone who is presumably a Sikh, or something? I don't see how either is more or less objectionable than the other.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:I always thought he was just white with a tan + body oil. Nothing about the character makes any particular sense so it's not a fight I really want to pick with NuTrek2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It's been gone over before, but cross-casting another person of color is less bad (but still not good) than casting white. No, it's exactly as stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
What purpose is served by naming the character Khan?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Not from the perspective of "(one of) the problems with whitewashing is that it deprives actors of color of opportunity." My perspective is "pick your battles".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:So if depriving nonwhite actors of the chance to play an iconic nonwhite character is not a battle worth fighting, what exactly is? His non-whiteness is nonsensical and gratuitous, I'm not saying that a character has to be Bobby Seale to be non-gratuitous but again, like I say, I don't consider Space Rod Stewart to be this landmark character for that particular reason. Doesn't make a lick of difference whether the character is played by some Bollywood hunk or by a floppy haired TV star. Unless you're making an argument that recasting the role as a white makes Starfleet's Osama Bin Laden automatically sympathetic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Explain this one. Okay:  The Warszawa posted:Okay well, the thing is that letting the people with institutional control (producers, casting, etc.) decide when marginalized identities are "sensical" and "essential" is going to perpetuate the loving over of actors of color, even leaving aside that the whole concept is based of "white = default" that is itself hosed up and loaded with racist norms. I addressed that and deemed it inconsequential - Shemar Moore as Khan would change nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They didn't want to make a film about the ethics and outcomes of eugenics and race. That's cool. But it does reduce the character 'Khan' to a hacked-in callback to old-trek when the film would have worked perfectly well if he was just an original character. Exactly, except the film has more to say about Old Trek than that specific character. e: actually, why am I even having this discussion? After Earth is brown as all get out and it's in theaters right now. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:(If you're about to argue that Montalbán "looks white," you should probably check yourself and google Morcecai Wyatt Johnson the NAACP's Walter White.) I'm about to argue that Montalban "looks stupid".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:To me, the more interesting question is this: if Khan doesn't have to be a person of color, do Kirk and McCoy need to be white? Does Spock? Of course not, hence Tuvok.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:And to take that feeling further: Yup. How thrilled would you be to see "oh nice, a Sikh!" with a full beard and a ceremonial dagger in his boot or whatever and then find out ten minutes later he's fuckin' Space Osama Bin Laden. If they were to do something like the cool, morally ambiguous badass Nemo from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I could get behind but I don't know about insisting that you cast the guy who flies aircraft into buildings as a POC.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I still think it would have been interesting for this Khan's universe to have grown as a person due to his forced labor for Robocop, and turned out to be a good guy at the end. Or neutral. In that case I would have loved making Khan a badass Sikh. But purely as a terrorist? Hell no. Sikhs have enough problems with Operation Blue Star and poo poo like that. They don't need this. I agree, and I'm not actually a fan of the tack they took with the character anyway. However, I'm also not that interested in rewriting the script of STID.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:You can graft Scientology onto nearly anything because it was made up by a science fiction writer and its teachings are a science fiction story, so there's going to be parallels. Most blockbuster actioners follow the Hero's Journey, so the trappings of any initiation ritual can be applied to them. They all describe the same thing. Pretty much, also "science fiction stories are repressed memories of real events?" What, you mean like metaphors? I think I'm going to need to sit down here, someone get this man a guest article at Cracked!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Corek posted:After Earth has been suggested to be a coded message about Scientology teachings - Xenu, engrams, thetans, dianetics, volcanoes, and more are in there. It's nearly verbatim from Hubbard's books at points. The Smith family has been linked to Scientology, and Scientologists apparently believe that sci-fi movies are just repressed memories of real events. I haven't seen the movie but thought that the following analysis of it was interesting. It was posted on a private forum but plagiarized onto Reddit, which led to the original author reposting it. It's very, very long but worth your while, and is not the only analysis to see Scientology parallels. Here's what I said about this stupid poo poo the last time it came up: quote:This is interesting because I felt that unlike many movies where the unwitting aspirational goal of the primary protagonist is to become this dispassionate meter of justice and slaughter (and indeed, this is how Legendary General Cypher Raige earned his reputation) in the end Jaden rejects this emphatically because he has nothing left to prove. Not only has he proven himself, he does his father one better by insisting that he wants to remain with his family as dirt farmer and has no real interest in the ruthless (and by implication necessary) ambition of his father/father's generation. The Legendary General's heart grew ten sizes and he not only accepts his son's wishes but agrees because he wants the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Corek posted:No, literally accounts of true stories that happened. I know what he means but you'd have to be stupid not to recognize figurative language when you see it. He's "literally" describing metaphors. A good example of this is that famous essay about Ender's Game and Hitler, about how certain events in his life match up exactly to Hitler's. This is entirely a red herring, amusing when you see it and probably equally amusing to the author who devised it. However, it means nothing except further criticism from that author details in depth how morally repugnant Card's ideal hero really is without reference to Hitler save for the overarching theme of justifying genocide. The psychiatrists = Xenu thing is just apophenia mixed with that Scientologist drum internet folks like to beat as if anyone cares, unless you want to then argue that science fiction storytelling on the whole is morally or ethically suspect (which it often can be).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
The ending is adamantly against the entire messaging of Scientology, which is, again, a bunch of bullshit that valorizes being a "self actualized" psychopath, whereas After Earth explicitly reintroduces proportion back into Jaden's life and teaches him that a defining experience should not be the only thing that defines you. That's such a neat idea, it's simple but it's not simplistic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:You're telling me ANYBODY could remember the name of Alice Eve's character who didn't have it memorized due to her appearance in Shatner-era stuff? Overly Attached Starfleet Officer
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I don't understand what that complaint is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:I didn't deny that it was. I was just taking the opportunity to complain about how stupid that scene was and the disgusting sexism on display. Sorry if it came out wrong. What's it called when Kirk loudly complains how stubborn Spock is? Is it okay because Kirk is a man?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Uhura's relationship with Spock is important isn't the same thing as "the film marginalizes her". Kirk's relationship with Spock is important and is as emotionally charged yet the film doesn't marginalize him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:Alchenar said that she's marginalized in that her relationship with Spock is set up as important and then left aside. She's pretty much just used as a means to develop her male counterparts - a classic Sexist Way To Write. Yes, but I'm saying it's unhelpful to conflate the two.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
The gag is that the majestic wonders of space are like a woman's body to Kirk.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:She behaves believably. Marcus is totally aware of Kirk's reputation, and finds him pathetic and not worthy of her time. She gets naked anyways because she wants to. More to that, it follows from the Uhura storyline from the first one, she doesn't just not get with Kirk because she's with Spock, she doesn't get with him because she flat out doesn't like him. She doesn't play coy with him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Exclusive: J.J. Abrams Takes Self Less Seriously Than Humorless Trek Fans
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
You picked two of the worst movies to say Wrath of Khan beats them in soundtrack.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I love James Horner's work on that film. Easily one of my favorite movie soundtracks. To each his own, I guess. It's a good score and I can see why someone would prefer it too a synthy 80's thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
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
|
|