|
Unless I missed something, the movie isn't necessarily set on future Earth right? I got more of an impression that Earth is being held hostage by the villain.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
octoroon posted:The movie poster shows future earth in distress in the background and we have ships crashing into the water on Earth, rising out of the water (probably on Earth), and some random city shots of what looks to be earth. I would say it's a fair assumption that the movie centers around Earth, although there's always the possibility that trailer wasn't representative of the whole. Oh ya, for sure Earth will be central to the story. I just don't think all the action will be set on future Earth, or that it will be as simple as a disaster movie with Star Trek trappings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Honestly, you can do this to just about any movie, no matter how bad it is, when you disregard every possible bit of creator intent (because the forum rules forbid discussion of actual intent, unless that goofy rule has changed). This forum excels at it. Nemesis is one SMG-esque post away from being considered one of the finest pieces of sci-fi ever created. Yes you can "read" any movie, but there's a difference between analyzing the themes and subtext in a film and saying its a masterpiece or enjoyable to watch. WarLocke posted:I always figured SMG as a gimmick/troll account because his posts always start out interesting but end up in Yes. His analyses come from a specific idea of "reading" the film itself while deemphasizing the filmmaker's stated intentions or the consensus assumption of what the film is supposed to be, and they make sense in that light. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 19:15
|
|
land. Do people actually read his posts?
|
Barry Convex posted:AFAIK, there has never been a single canon LGBT character in Star Trek. Just a few who have appeared or been outed as such in non-canon comics, novels, etc. (the guy who gets assimilated by the Borg in the hull scene in First Contact is one, I think). This is probably the closest they got.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:And Jonathan Frakes wanted the character from the genderless race he kissed in that episode to be played by a man, but the higher powers refused and made it be a woman. Yeah, I can't really defend that. I'm not usually one to engage with these discussions of "problematic" elements of pop culture, but now that its been mentioned the LGBT issue seems like a huge oversight for the franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
They just realigned the deflector, like always.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
But is anyone actually involved with the film making a big deal about the so-called "mystery villain", or is it just blogs and forums speculating like they do before every big release?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:People might as well complain about the Starry Night painting for crying out loud. The Starry Night is actually a perfect example of the opposite. On first glance it might seem to be only two dominant shades of color, but on closer inspection there's a whole palette of complimentary and contrasting shades making up the image. For example, the deep purples and reds in the darker parts of the image. Compare:   For the record I think this film looks like it employs the trendy orange-teal thing in a more palatable way than a lot of recent films. That said, though it may be tiresome the general complaint is based on a real trend.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I just think it's dumb to dismiss something because "it's a trend". I find it really insufferable when something gets bitched about because it is used a lot. If there is something unappealing about it lets talk about that, but saying "eh I've seen too much of this, I now do not like" is so mind numbly meaningless as a criticism. It's not bad because its a trend, its bad because in the worst examples the potential for subtle contrast and depth in the image is lost in lieu of a cheap contrast achieved by bathing everything in two particularly popping shades without any thought or subtlety. It's like the "loudness war" of over-compression in music, except for film. Of course, both trends can get good results if applied intelligently. I was about to edit that post with these, but I'll just put them here:  
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Ah yes, the Blue and Orange thing. I wish films would stop it! gently caress the fact that the color temperatures for most film lights are blue (5600 Kelvin) and orange (3200k), no, let's invent new lights that give off no color! That really has nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
The color temperature of film lights did not tint all the shadows in this image teal. Someone chose to do that, and they didn't have to make that specific choice. Especially with all the options available with current technology. EDIT: Also 5600 Kelvin lights are not teal, they are bluish white. Obviously nobody is complaining about any use of those two colors ever, the issue is only when that specific exaggerated color scheme is applied automatically to every Hollywood blockbuster and the potential for subtle contrast and depth in the image is lost. If you have examples of older movies that have the same level of exaggeration I'd love to see them, though keep in mind that reissues of old movies often have the colors re-graded. Here's a quite pleasant looking shot from (a re-issue of) The Godfather:  And here is what it might look like if modern Hollywood got a hold of it:  See what is lost? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Nothing is lost if the look is intended and is used wisely. Of course, and I said as much at the top of this page. I'm not sure it is being used wisely, though, when it seems like its now just assumed that Hollywood movies (especially action and big franchise films) have to use that color scheme across the entire film. Dan Didio posted:You could draw a dick all over every frame of The Godfather and say that an entirely vague group of people 'might' do it at some point. Congrats on missing the point completely. I'm not concerned that someone is actually going to do that to The Godfather. It's an example illustrating that sometimes films look better without orange skin and teal shadows. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:No one is under the impression that it is a color balance and shift that always improves a film, Except apparently everyone who works in color grading on Hollywood action and franchise films. quote:A better example would have been the Indiana Jones: The Complete Adventures Blu-Ray rerelease. Is that meant as an example of good or bad color grading? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Enough for it to be an identifiable trend, which is why it comes up so often. How about instead of picking at the details of what I'm saying you actually try and understand? Do you guys really not see this trend and why one might think its a shame, or are you just being contrarian? Personally I dislike the look of teal-tinted shadows and I vastly prefer a color scheme like the one I posted at the top of this page, but that's entirely subjective. What is less subjective is that using the same generic two-toned color scheme for an entire film is giving up the potential for visual contrast and storytelling that more variety could bring to the table. Just going from the shots on BluRay.com those Indiana Jones re-issues don't look nearly as exaggerated with the teal or visually unpalatable to me as modern films like, say, Man of Steel.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:If it's that much of an identifiable trend, you should be able to source a decent example that isn't made-up. What kind of example would you accept? I don't have access to the footage of any Hollywood film prior to the color grading process by which to show a before and after comparison. If example stills of the trend itself can suffice here are a few, including the 5 top grossing films from 2012: The Avengers - http://i47.tinypic.com/sebza8.png The Dark Knight Rises - http://i46.tinypic.com/99fluw.png The Hunger Games - http://i46.tinypic.com/s3iw4g.png Twilight: Breaking Dawn part 2 - http://i46.tinypic.com/2vsma1u.png Skyfall - http://i45.tinypic.com/1zxtyqg.png Mission Impossible 4 - http://i49.tinypic.com/fngax.png Transformers 3 - http://i47.tinypic.com/2m2hlds.png Man of Steel - http://i48.tinypic.com/116hsep.png Serenity - http://i46.tinypic.com/neytxh.png Cloud Atlas - http://i47.tinypic.com/30wm235.png The Dictator - http://i49.tinypic.com/1hf441.png Drive - http://i47.tinypic.com/vmre5d.png Star Trek (2009) - http://i45.tinypic.com/vson01.jpg If you think its disingenuous for me to be picking single frames out of the films watch those trailers. quote:I mean, altering a still of The Godfather, to show what it might look like if those corporate hollywood devils got their hands on it? Really? I already said what that was meant to be an example of. I also didn't say that this film was going to be hurt by a lack of variation, and from what little we've seen this film looks to be using the same basic style in a more interesting and varied way than others I've seen recently. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
I didn't say it was alarming or distressing, just a shame.Dan Didio posted:Is there a particular example in the context of those films you cited (that have been released and can be put into context) where you think the storytelling or 'lack' of visual contrast was harmed? Because all I'm seeing here is that the trend exists, which isn't something any would deny. Alright, for a specific example I remember watching Mission Impossible 4 and finding it hard to follow one of the action sequences near the end because everything was just a blur of teal. Look at the still from that film, isn't it hard to make out what's going on because of the lack of visual contrast? Now that's a static shot of a relatively simple scene, but imagine that look in an action sequence (or just watch the film, I guess). Here is another example of how visual contrast effects storytelling. When I first went to see The Fellowship of the Ring apparently there was some kind of problem with the projection or print, and the entire film was tinted mainly blue from start to finish. I didn't know it was unintentional, and it really hurt the experience because there was much less visual contrast between the idyllic Shire, the creepy mines and caves, the ethereal forest, etc. Of course that example was unintentional, but when I re-watched the film that was probably the first time I was consciously aware of how much color balancing changes the experience. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Well we can agree to disagree on that action sequence, then, but even if you didn't have problems with that specific film can you at least see why somebody might, and that there could be alternate color balancing choices that might be clearer or more engaging? It's possible to make films look bleak and cold without being murky, which is how I would describe that shot (admittedly part of that is due to YouTube's compression), and without "flattening natural variance in skin tones and losing a lot of texture" like Maxwell Lord said. Martyrs is the best example I can think of, if I had the film at hand I would give example shots.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree and I'm sure there are plenty of objectionable colour choice schemes in modern films, possibly as a result of this trend. My problem is that anytime this comes up, people trip over themselves to demonize any film that looks vaguely like it has an orange or teal bent and then fail to substantiate anything about it beside vague notions of it being lazy, corporate hollywood loving up films again. Fair enough. I don't want to see color trends applied without thought, but I don't want to see them criticized without thought either. Anyway moving on, one interesting thing that stands out from the new trailer is the amount of costuming changes, and costumes for the main cast besides the standard Starfleet uniforms, in the film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Janeway may have been reckless and erratic for an Admiral position, but at least she wasn't infested by evil space parasites.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Hilarion posted:Why does everyone hate Janeway so much? I actually really like Janeway, mainly due to Kate Mulgrew, but she is definitely more erratic and prone to wildly bizarre decisions than the other main captains. Part of that is because the writers disagreed with the actress on what direction to take the character. More on topic: Did they ever consider doing a DS9 or Voyager film? Or a Star Trek film not tied to one of the television series? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Alright. You're probably going to crucify me for this (and maybe rightly so), but I've seen First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis and that's about it. Maybe the odd episode of Next Generation here and there, but I can't remember anything specific except for an episode where Worf turns into a spider monster and one where everyone turns into children. Star Trek DS9 dealt with a lot of those themes earlier, and quite well. Especially the pervasive casual racism in Starfleet (in the sense that the characters tend to define everyone by their race, and treat other species as monolithic groups).
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I'm kind of disappointed that Spock Prime played the "I don't want to mess with time" card, seeing as just by him going back in time he's made huge changes to the timeline (the new Enterprise is an example of the arms race the Narada spawned, although I forget if that was implied in '09 or if it was a comics thing). He's spent enough time with Kirk Prime to know when to go cowboy, and this is kind of it. I don't think the issue was changing time, it was more that he wanted to allow the people in this time-line to find their own ways and not use him as an excuse not to grow and develop to face challenges for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You know, I've been thinking about this movie and its predecessor a lot lately. They are big, flashy, aggressively stupid movies, but I still like them and I've been trying to figure out why. At this point, I have a kind of working hypothesis. I think it's because previous to these movies, Star Trek had just forgotten how to have fun. I watch the original series and Next Generation back-to-back on television, and it's amazing to me how different the atmosphere is in the two shows. It just seems to me like everyone in The Next Generation is so buttoned-down and professional and stick-up-their-rear end boring. Seriously, you have a room that can re-create absolutely any scenario you can imagine and your guilty pleasure is re-enacting Raymond Chandler-esque detective novels? Everyone is so stiff and formal and tepid. Not that it wasn't a smart, interesting show...but it just lacked a lot of the adventure and camaraderie of the original series. I don't think they're stupid movies, though. They're just not concerned with the same kinds of details that a large portion of the hardcore fanbase seems to be concerned with. Voyager could be fun in an extremely camp way. Once again, it has a bad reputation with the fans because glorious camp wasn't what the fanbase wanted or expected. And pretty much every character on DS9 had a sense of fun and moments of looseness, even the villains, along with a greater complexity of moral ambiguity and serialization than any other part of the franchise. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:13 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:And Voyager had potential that they immediately flushed down the toilet. There was a gold mine of dramatic potential having two antagonistic crews thrown together in a dangerous, resource-poor situation. The writers then fell all over themselves to have the terrorists almost seamlessly integrated into the Starfleet crew as soon as possible and have the show be as close to Trek status quo as they could make it. That's just what I said; Voyager wasn't good at being what people expected or wanted from the premise. However, it was really good at being a camp take on "the Trek status quo". Sure a lot of the episodes' basic premises could have been done (or were done) on TNG, but the tone and atmosphere of both shows are completely different. Though Voyager went closer to Adam West's Batman than the BSG remake grittiness that fans would have preferred. I have a personal rule for this kind of situation: judge something for what it is. There is no good or bad, rather good or bad at. Remember, we're talking about fun in Trek. Would "two antagonistic crews thrown together in a dangerous, resource-poor situation" have been fun? More fun than a crew-member going too fast and evolving into a hyper-lizard in a grotesque homage to The Fly, then having lizard sex with the captain and starting a new off-shoot species of humanity in the Delta Quadrant that is never mentioned again? As for Sisko: I've been watching DS9 recently, and yeah Sisko is awkward and undeveloped for the first couple of seasons but he still has those little details that give him life and make him more complex than the stiff, polite intellectuals of TNG's beige world. He has a wild temper and impatient streak, loves baseball, has more complex relationships with his family and the rest of the crew, and the show allows him to be more vulnerable and world-weary than Kirk or Picard on a regular basis. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Darko posted:"Good or bad at" includes "squandering opportunity," and Voyager had a rather unique premise that had the opportunity of true greatness. The worst thing you can be is mediocre when you could be great (abject failure is still interesting in a different way), and that's why Voyager has so many issues. Watching DS9 has made me rethink the general consensus on Voyager's squandered potential. Note that for years DS9 and Voyager were airing together, and DS9 was already exploring much of the territory and tone that people think Voyager should have explored. For example, going by conventional wisdom would have meant two Star Trek series seriously tackling the difficulty of integrating former terrorists with a Starfleet crew at the same time. Instead we got two wildly different takes on the franchise, for better or worse. By the "good or bad at" thing I mean that I like Voyager for what it is, regardless of what it could have been. Any work of fiction or art could have been something else, but focusing so much on that seems to be a form of talking oneself out of enjoying what actually exists (and same goes for this film). I see now what you mean about the repressed characters, though, Phylodox. Looks like we're talking about two different tones of fun, because to me that's all part of the campy fun. That Tom Paris is actually living out a nerdy fantasy adventure but he'd rather watch old television serials and eat popcorn on the holodeck is funny to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I'm okay with a show having nerdy characters...but that wasn't how Paris was presented to us in the context of the show. He was the hotshot pilot ex-con bad boy. Sadly (so, so, so sadly), the only characters who use the holodeck in a realistic fashion are Quark (portrayed in the show as a revolting pervert), Geordi (who falls in love with his holo-lady for God's sake), and loving Barclay (who has crippling social anxiety and even then has to couch his holo-gently caress-fantasies in weird, flowery literary scenarios). I don't know if it's the fault of the writers, Roddenberry, or the perceived fan base, but the show was just weirdly, hilariously uptight. Especially considering how swashbuckling, adventurous, and free-spirited the original series was. You're calling it hilariously uptight, I'm calling it funny and campy. Are we still disagreeing here? The contrast between Paris' archetypal role, as set up, and his actual characterization is what makes it amusing. Anyway, I'm not sure why we need to see scenes of "realistic" holodeck use but sexual uses are definitely implied as no big deal in DS9 at least.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:I thought it was a bad film, I did not like it. A lot of those complaints in that first review are nitpicks based on wrong assumptions and inattentiveness. For example, in Star Trek its often easier to beam someone down than up since beaming someone up requires getting a lock on their exact location, which may be constantly moving or subject to interference, but when beaming someone down they already have the subject in a stable position and they just need to pick the right place to put them. Also, the "rented thugs" the article mentions are Section 31, who are already a part of past Trek series, and I don't see why building a warship would be outside of their capabilities. The second review has a very un-nuanced view of the film's themes, in wanting to divide the characters into clear-cut "good guy" and "bad guy" roles when the film can be seen as calling both into question. Again, this is not new to the Trek franchise since the same theme is explored in DS9, even with a similar plot-line at one point. quote:I agree with those in the thread who feel that whitewashing is a serious problem in film casting that is getting worse at the moment but one thing I feel hasn't been necessarily addressed enough is how Star Trek and its genre relatives have contributed to really static and wrongfully scientific ideas of "race" (which doesn't exist) and ethnicity, which was a concept intended to be very obviously socially constructed but has become another by-word for biological race. Obviously, in Trek (and Trek-inspired series), cultural and ethnic diversity was supposed to be celebrated by analogy with cooperation between different species, and biological species in the series are also homogenous cultures. This obviously reflects earlier anthropological 20th century ideas about difference and cultural diversity (and with it, earlier, more racially problematic ideas about post-capitalist, post-scarcity utopia), but I'm wondering whether the continuation of this trend in Trek hasn't been one of the whole series' greatest crimes. The obsession with phenotype also seems to rely on an ugly essentialism that eventually ends up in people's insistence on Othello being as dark-skinned as possible, or people complaining that Denzel was too dark to play Malcolm X. That whole thing (especially the assumed homogeneity of different space races) was also tackled quite well by DS9. Time and time again the Starfleet crew assumes they can look at someone's race/species and know everything about them, and each time they get egg on their faces. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Where can the white-washing discussion possibly go from here, guys? None of us were privy to the details of the casting process. None of us knows why Del Toro walked out. None of us knows why they ultimately cast Cumberbatch. None of us knows how the film would have turned out with a different actor in the role. I think we can all agree that minorities could be represented much better by mainstream Hollywood films, but I'm not sure why this film in particular has become a lightning rod for that discussion. Meanwhile there's a whole film to discuss that's getting derailed by discussing those unknowns.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Ferrinus said it best: Maybe the discussions get that response because whitewashing is not an issue of any particular film; its the pattern and the attitudes behind that pattern that are the problem and not any one instance. The Hollywood casting process can't be expected to change because of a discussion on the Something Awful forums no matter how many times this particular thread goes in the same circles. That being said, I'm not saying not to have that discussion at all, but maybe this thread isn't the place for it. There's a thread specifically for discussions of race and racism in film, and since the issue here isn't really the casting process of this particular film but rather the systemic issues in Hollywood casting in general maybe that's a better place for it. The unknowns I mentioned are important because more details would be needed to get the discussion anywhere past those three proclamations you have there. You claim whitewashing occurred here, unless we know how and why what more can really be said? Anyway I don't want to continue too far with this, I'd rather discuss the film. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:59 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Seriously this bothered me above all else. Casting issues are important but JJ Abrams changed what Star Trek is. A post scarcity human utopia that can now focus on outward exploration rather than internal conflict. Internal conflict within the Federation has been part of the series for some time. For example, the Maquis.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:He looks like one of those nerds that wears a fedora. You look like one of those nerds that judges a film without seeing it. jivjov posted:Why would he keep a dead guy in an induced coma? Wasn't he just brain dead or almost dead at that point? The plot of this movie wasn't that complex but there were a lot of little details that have escaped me now. I think they could have streamlined the cryo-tube stuff without losing anything. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:- How does fleet disposition make any sense? There aren't any fleets around Earth. There don't even appear to be any ships stationed around Earth, even though we know that the ships must have come there since the various Captains were there when Khan attacked SFHQ. Did these ships leave? If so, where did they go? If they were still around Earth, why didn't they do anything when the Enterprise and the dreadnaught were fighting within spitting distance? I'll leave someone else to come up with an in-universe answer for this (and it shouldn't be too hard), but I find this detail of the film interesting because it shows that Admiral Marcus was right in some ways: Starfleet really was ill-prepared for a serious attack. It's just that the threat was not from the Klingons but rather was right under his nose, and what they needed was more defense not more offense. quote:- How does Kirk grow as a character? Spock? The rest of the cast? Do you think we are shown why the characters change (if so) or are we just told this? Kirk goes from naively bragging about not losing anyone under his command, to being forced to accept that responsibility and loss including the loss of his own life for his crew. He grows from a cocky kid to a real Captain. Spock deepens his understanding of his own emotional balance and the balance between his loyalty to the Federation and his loyalty to his crew. Uhura understands Spock's Vulcan way of life more, and what it means for their relationship as well as facing her fears about their lives constantly being in danger. The other characters have their own little arcs, but not big changes or growth. quote:- What does Khan want? Why does he do the actions he does in this film and how do those actions help him achieve his goals? For instance, how does landing on the Klingon homeworld help him in any way? Considering his enemy (Admiral Marcus) wanted the supership built to provoke war with the Klingons, why would Khan put himself in a position where Marcus' goals could be achieved? We don't get to know this completely, but I see that as a good thing. The last thing this movie needed was to pause for a long exposition scene where the mustache-twirling villain explains his plan to the hero in great detail. quote:- Why does Admiral Marcus need to keep his attempt at militarizing Starfleet a secret when Earth has recently been attacked and a key homeworld vaporized, not to mention significant parts of the fleet wiped out? Regardless of his ulterior motive to provoke war with the Klingons? After 9/11 America still needed a justification to invade Iraq (the alleged weapons of mass destruction). After the Nero incident Admiral Marcus still needed a justification to attack the Klingons. Throughout the series various parts of the Federation are willing to bend or break their vaunted values, but they always still need to justify these lapses to themselves somehow. I really want to watch this film again, get some of this stuff straighter. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:30 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Marcus was correct in this specific way (ST09 showed this, though I doubt they could have prepared enough.) I'd argue that offense and defense don't always have a strong line separating them; WW2 aircraft carriers post-Pearl Harbor were primarily used as mobile defense platforms but obviously had tremendous offensive capabilities as well. If your territory is taken, you'll need offensive capabilities to get it back. In other words, sometimes you need both. Ok sure, but in this case the line is clear. Building a warship to attack the Klingons would be an act of offense. Protecting Earth better would be a strategy of defense. quote:That shouldn't be read as a justification for Marcus' actions. It makes him a more interesting villain. A villain who is right in some way is an interesting villain. quote:I don't think Kirk's sacrifice of his life meant anything. Not because he didn't mean it but because it was pretty obvious due to the "tribble scene" shown a few minutes before that he'd be resurrected before the film ended. From a story perspective, it didn't mean anything. Kirk's sacrifice meant that he went from naively bragging about not losing anyone under his command, to being forced to accept that responsibility and loss including the loss of his own life for his crew. He grew from a cocky kid to a real Captain. Whether you guessed the twist from the ample foreshadowing is a different issue from your original objection to the supposed lack of character growth in the film. If they hadn't had that tribble foreshadowing scene people would be complaining just as much that the ending came out of nowhere. No decision is safe from the nitpicking plot-hole spotting crowd, because that mindset is fundamentally against the enjoyment and relevance of fiction. Fiction will always be unrealistic and always have holes, because it is fiction. Fictional worlds are not realistic (they are not real) and will never be complete in every way. quote:I'd also argue that loyalty to Federation (if you think of the Federation as having the ideals expressed in Roddenberry's time) wasn't that much different than him having loyalty to his crew; the issue was Marcus. The Federation is a fallible bureaucratic organization that can be subverted or corrupted, regardless of the values it claims to stand for. The crew is a family of sorts who are willing to give their lives for each other. At the beginning of the film Spock turns Kirk in for violating the Prime Directive. By the end of the film I doubt he would make the same choice. quote:Spock - he got way too emotional at the end of the film. I didn't see him regain his "balance" per se; we see him trying to kill Khan, Uhura talking him down a bit, then his brief scene in the medbay and roll credits. By emotional balance I mean balance, not suppression. Balance means both sides have equal weight. Vulcans suppress their emotions and filter them through a constant sober discipline, but they still are always fundamentally emotional beings. Spock struggles not simply to suppress his emotions, but to know when to use them to his advantage and when to bury them under cold "logic". This issue of balance comes up in his conflicts with both Kirk and Uhura. Keep in mind that Vulcan logic still relies on emotion; pure logical reasoning can't tell you what actions to take without emotional stakes guiding you as well. quote:I'm not saying the film needed Khan to explain his plan in obvious detail. But the audience should be able to fill in the gaps. Marcus didn't explain everything but I still had a good idea about his motivations and the reasons for his actions. Ok, well we could all easily speculate on Khan's motives and plans from the information in the film. We just won't come up with the one true canon answer. Being left with unanswered questions at the end of a film is not the same as the film being flawed and full of plot-holes. quote:If the film is an allegory to 9/11, then Khan hiding out in Klingon territory would have been equivalent to OBL hiding out in Afghanistan. (The primary difference is where the actual terrorist was hiding vs. allegations about terrorists/WMDs in another.) But even Kirk never bothers to send a message to Klingon Command saying that a known terrorist was hiding out on their homeworld and giving them the chance to hand him over. Even if the Klingons would have told Kirk to go away, they would not have welcomed Khan on their homeworld. This was very different from Afghanistan where OBL was being sheltered by that nation's government. I didn't say the film is a direct allegory to 9/11 and the aftermath. I directly answered your earlier specific question using that situation as a real world example of powerful people who claim to be principles relying on excuses to justify going against those principles. The film is not a direct allegory, but it deals with themes that have relevance to current situations in the real world. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:15 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Won't the rest of the fleet be where he drat well wants it to be? Yeah, wouldn't the fleet be positioned for war to break out with the Klingons?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:"A ship under my direct command was destroyed on a secret mission in Klingon space under unclear circumstances. Clearly, an act of unilateral, unprovoked aggression! Conveniently, we already had the fleet parked in a perfect position for retaliation." He would be waiting for the Klingons to retaliate. The Starfleet ships would not be the ones retaliating, just reacting to the first wave of the Klingons' attack. Then I guess the Vengeance would swoop in and save the day. quote:I assume to avoid that the actual plan would have to involve the Klingons either formally declaring war or just launching a massive offensive. Or so my limited movie-text-ignoring, fun-hater brain speculates, but then why leave Earth of all places undefended? Klingons can just warp in, pound it to rubble, and win straight up. A fleet of enemy ships coming to attack Earth is a different situation from two Starfleet vessels duking it out over Earth. The former could set off safeguards, like outposts that detect Klingon warp signatures or whatever. Where we really disagree is that I don't see an unanswered question, like why weren't ships visibly defending Earth at the end of the film, as an automatic flaw. If I wasn't happy to ignore some of those things or make up a satisfactory answer myself I could never enjoy any Star Trek media ever.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Honestly I wouldn't care if it were any old Federation Planet, but Earth was stretching it for me. Alright. Cingulate posted:Man I personally hope they hurry up with the Bluray release so this thread is more people who know more about films than me explaining composition and lighting and stuff rather than explanations of how to optimally position Starfleet assets to most effectively win the Klingon war. You and me both. This film was beautiful. Is there an art of/ making of book out? EDIT - Did this film have any of the really obvious product placement that plagued the last one? I didn't notice any. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:51 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I see what they mean. Seeing Kirk's sacrifice as character growth doesn't work for me because I think he would have done the same thing in the same situation at the beginning, too. It's not that his willingness to sacrifice himself proves that his character grew throughout the film. Rather he develops by facing that situation. Maybe if he had faced the same challenges at a different time he would have developed the same way, but that's because facing those challenges are what force him to grow as a person. At the beginning he naively brags to Pike about never losing anyone under his command, not realizing that the unearned confidence behind that comment is exactly why Pike doesn't think he's ready. Pike is worried about Kirk in part because he doesn't know how Kirk will handle loss; in the first movie Kirk didn't handle the absence of his father very well, after all. By the end of the film Kirk has faced the possibility of losing everything: his command, his friendships, his crew, his ship, his planet, his confidence in himself (the scene where he admits to Spock he has no idea what to do), his trust in Starfleet, and even his own life. Having faced those challenges and survived he has proven he is now ready for command, and he has earned his five year mission (which is how the film ends). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 16:29 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I get how it's really easy to limit white supremacy to the obvious poo poo - it's tempting, especially speaking as someone who has been subjected to serious violence for being the wrong color, to think "those are the bad people." They are bad people, sure but attacking someone on account of their race, not hiring someone because of their race (or because they're "too imposing" or "not imposing enough" and oh how that just happens to coincide ...), or simply acquiescing to the institutions that are inexorably linked to the history of straight up white supremacy in this country are all symptoms of the same disease. How do you know any of those things were involved with the casting decisions made during production of this film? Why have you interpreted the Prime Directive, a rule specifically against playing god, as an imperialist notion to elevate Starfleet to God status? Had the first European explorers and settlers come to America and seen that there were already people living there and so decided not to interfere with them would that be playing God? Would that be racial imperialism?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Hollywood is not immune to the legacy of racial oppression and white supremacy that permeates American institutions - it requires active engagement with and repudiation of these institutional problems. Whitewashing is a prima facie case of acquiescence to institutional racism by further marginalizing - it is an act where intent is not relevant to whether the harm occurs. I'm not concerned with intent as much as what actually took place to get Benedict Cumberbatch in the role of Khan. It seems bizarre to me that you and others want to talk at length about the subject without addressing that important most basic aspect, unless you really want to talk about institutional racism in Hollywood in general and you're just using the controversy over this film as an excuse to keep changing the subject to that larger issue. quote:Because the idea that "we cannot intervene with the lowly savage for fear that we, in our mightiness, may put him above his station - we must see if he rises on his own to be worthy of our company," and "we cannot reveal our existence, for they simply cannot handle the truth" a) infantilizes the indigenous people and b) sets Starfleet above and separate from the exogenous experiences that undoubtedly shape cultural development. I don't know if any part of the franchise ever mentions the full text of the prime directive, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. The various entries in the franchise may not always be consistent about what the Prime Directive entails but that doesn't mean you should just go ahead and make up your own racist caricature to criticize. Have you considered that the Prime Directive could have come about because the humans of Starfleet are judging humanity's own imperialistic tendencies and temptations, not because they're judging other species as "lowly savages"? If humanity suddenly found out about the existence of space-faring alien life that would have massive but unpredictable effects on every aspect of human life. It's not "infantile" to react strongly to an event that suddenly shifts one's whole species' understanding of the universe and their place in it. Were the aliens in that scenario concerned about the moral and ethical implications they could decide not to initiate first contact without looking down on us as inferior, except in the sense that they currently posses knowledge that we do not. I agree that it doesn't make sense to be so concerned with protecting the natural development of a species, given that contact with other races is just as natural as any other experience. But its just as silly to claim that deciding not to interfere is playing god. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What are you concerned with, then? That they really, truly tried, when there's zero evidence that they even looked at North Indian, Indian, or Indian-American actors? That they cast a Hispanic actor who then dropped out so then they cast white? It's that last part (and partly the cross-casting) that is unacceptable. I can't judge whether they "really truly tried" because I was not privy to the casting process. Neither were you. The difference between you and I is that I have yet to be convinced immutable "roles of color" exist. quote:I'm sorry, what part of looking at the underlying principles of the Prime Directive as it's presented in the film and surrounding franchise is "making up my own racist caricature"? There is difference between using language that exposes the underlying assumptions of the Prime Directive and a caricature. You added the racism in (ie. using the term "lowly savages") and then want on to say the prime directive is racist. The parts you added are the same parts you object to. If you want to say you're exposing the underlying assumptions then explain how the text supports those additions. quote:It's infantilizing (and self-deifying) to presume that your role is to keep the truth about a group's place in the universe from them, though. Do you interfere with the lives of everyone around you all the time? If not, are you "infantilizing" them? I'm an atheist. I don't think God exists. Since I don't go around constantly telling every Christian what I see as the truth about their place in the universe, am I "infantilizing" them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 19:22
|
|