|
Part of the problem was that Trek started to be perceived as a "family" show, something you could let your kids watch (TNG and DS9 being in first-run syndication may have been a part of this- you couldn't be sure what hour they'd air in a given market.) When DS9 did a Risa episode they had to tone down the sexual elements and even reshoot some scenes with the actors in less revealing clothing/poses.
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
BrandonGK posted:Then again there was the TNG episode "Conspiracy" which ended with a guy getting his head literally blown up, and then having a monster burn it's away out of his corpse. What was essentially a kid show suddenly turned into a Tobe Hooper movie out of nowhere. That was early in the show, though, when nobody had any idea what they were doing.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's a bit hard to suspend disbelief on that point when the film establishes that: It's very simple. The Enterprise is ALWAYS the only ship in the sector. ALWAYS.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:Saw the movie yesterday. After reading this thread and others without spoilers I braced myself for a lackluster showing. However I enjoyed the movie. It is not perfect but frankly probably about as good as you can get for a mainstream Star Trek movie(though I must wonder what a Nolan Star Trek would be like). The spoilers to me looked like a bigger deal in accidental mouse overs than they were in the movie itself. The various callbacks aren't entirely great but the film works either way. I still consider the main title music for ST09 to be one of the best cues of the modern era.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Why? I liked the movie? Why am I going to go out of my way to have someone convince me I don't? Now all of you know how I feel whenever the Star Wars prequels are discussed. You can be a fan of a thing, be aware of its flaws, and feel that its merits outweigh them.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Look, how many times do I have to say this. The Enterprise is the only ship in the sector. The Enterprise is ALWAYS the only ship in the sector. I mean, it's technically possible to break this rule but only if you want the other ship to be an obstacle like the Reliant or if it's Star Trek VI and you just want an excuse for Sulu to show up. Do you people even understand how Star Trek works?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:I think there's also much more to examine as far as the prequels are concerned than just the failure of the film's text and cinematography. A big portion of the RLM reviews, which I sincerely enjoy and which made me appreciate the OT even more, show the behind the scenes process of how the films got that way. The "shot/reverse shot" analysis gets its impact from showing Lucas sitting in his director's chair gloating about his sophisticated film-making process. I don't think that same level of behind the scenes documentation exists for other films that RLM targets, which drains a lot of their punch. But that's where I really think they overreach, though, trying to read great significant psychological import into the footage and using their after-the-fact knowledge of what the movie was to say "Okay, clearly everyone here knows it's a bad movie but is too scared to tell George" or "See how arrogant he is talking about poetry" when that may not be the reality of what anyone was thinking or feeling at the time. (It's especially tricky when you're trying to read Lucas himself since this is somebody notoriously aloof and introverted.) It's the Commentary Tracks of the Damned problem- if you look at the making of a movie you hated, sure, everyone's going to seem arrogant and stupid because how could they not see how horrible this was?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Na'at posted:Except that everyone meeting in that room who got shot up were captains of, ya know star ships. So where the hell did all their ships go? "Somebody dies and we all move up in rank."
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I don't understand how so many are hung up on the Enterprise not having backup when "Enterprise is the only ship in the sector" has been accepted without any issue for so long. Tell me about it. I've said this twice and it doesn't seem to ever get through. Do you people not understand how Star Trek works?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
"Genius" is probably going too far, I'd say, but he's very good at what he does. He writes strong emotional beats that are really easy to grab on to, and his handling of action scenes is very strong- he can do all the big sweeping camera moves and handheld stuff that blockbuster audiences expect but there's usually a good foundation and establishment of spatial relationships- poo poo isn't just popping up at random. I'd rank Nolan higher overall but as Big Name Directors go he's one of the better ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say the argument is trapped in a loop at this point,
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Well the finale of The Next Generation spells that not only is there another alternative but that it's inevitable that advanced civilizations will either realize that there's more to learn by looking inside their own minds than in aggressive, quasi-imperialist exploration or they destroy themselves through their own lack of foresight and understanding. The whole plot of "All Good Things..." hinges on the Federation poking at something they don't understand in what seems like an innocuous manner, and through their ignorance very nearly causing the human race to cease existing, and it's only through Picard opening his mind to new possibilities beyond "use technobabble of the week to solve this problem" that he averts extinction. But is exploration itself an inherently bad thing? Imperialism being a bad thing doesn't mean that history would have best been served by everyone staying in place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
I do think that they should have cast an Indian as Khan, or at least someone non-white- but at the same time I really liked Cumberbatch's performance and thought he did really well, so it's sort of a bird-in-the-hand-worth-two-in-the-bush thing. It's hard to compare an actual performance to a hypothetical.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
I wonder how Bill Hader ended up doing one of the computer voices.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
I'd say it's essential to the plot that Harrison be a displaced member of another culture (no interest in or connection to whatever "Starfleet" does at first, so they manipulate him) with superior abilities and an interest primarily in his own kin/crew, and for him to be able to pass as a nondescript citizen for the purposes of Section 31's project and the attendant coverup. In that context, Khan and his crew of genetic supermen from Earth's future-past fit the bill as well as anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
This whole "gets lost in all the action and CGI" line is one I almost never get. David Denby does it a lot too. How can action make moments of thematic development not exist?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
I do recall reading something about Roddenberry wanting to introduce a gay character on TNG, but he died before he could make that happen and of course Berman and Braga were all "What, are they going to wear pink triangles on their uniforms?" I get the complaints about Carol Marcus not having an obvious purpose and the underwear shot was gratuitous (though I can really only agree with this academically), but I did like her. I think she had a good dynamic with both Kirk and McCoy, and her arc with her father played into the whole bit with Kirk having Pike as a surrogate father figure who was less corrupt but not by that much. And I think Alice Eve did a nice job. Hopefully they are setting her up to be a presence in ST3.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'll give for now that the way the scene played out somehow makes a point about Kirk or whatever. How is what exactly the audience is shown, how it is shown Alice Eve's abs, important for that point? The camera and lighting were pointed that way for a reason. Which? Is it the same reason why Troi wore a miniskirt? Honestly my answer is "why not?" There are scenes and times when this kind of titilation would break the mood or be otherwise inappropriate. But things aren't quite that grim or serious yet and there's time to establish a little friction and yes, throw in some sexiness. A little gratuitous, sure, but it's not so out of place that it does significant damage to the narrative. We could use less male gaze in movies overall, but an individual case like this doesn't strike me as especially egregious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The moral of the story is that boners are king and if someone in the audience gets one then it doesn't matter if it's dumb or alienating to others. Well, if the boners and alienation are in equal proportions it kind of cancels out and I guess you end up with something neutral.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
That kinda made it work better, though. I saw the shot in the trailer and was like, "Okay, we know who Kirk is sleeping with this time." But in the actual film it's got a pretty blatant "not gonna happen" subtext.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Honestly I'm finding I remember the image of her being in uniform almost as much as her being out of it. I haven't seen Eve in anything else I think, but much of the time she's been used as a generic babe, so it was good to see her pull off this sort of bubbly, ever-curious and assertive character. A few people called her wooden but I think she showed herself to be pretty good. She makes a lasting impression in a way that a lot of other "beautiful women in lab coats" don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Not entirely. I mean, if there's sexuality throughout the movie than one more sexualized shot isn't entirely gratuitous even if it's not strictly necessitated by the plot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
It's possible for a scene to be multiple things. I think it is sexist to a degree and gratuitous to a degree, but at the same time I like how Eve played it and the overall tone. I agree with a poster above who said "cheesecake is a sometimes food", but I don't think this one slice was excessive in context. I mean I suppose it's a matter of individual tolerances.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
To me a character is good if I find them memorable and am glad for their presence in the film. By those standards Marcus passes- she's energetic and curious and represents some of the "good" ideals of the UFP. She doesn't have a large part in the story but I think she's a good character because her presence enhances the film beyond there merely being a pretty lady on screen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:There's a lot of words for another terrible awkward scene where a woman has to get her tits out in a summer blockbuster. This is CineD. A lot of words is sort of our thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
You know what would be a thing you could revisit in the sequel? The Tholians. If you really want to finally start exploring the unknown, they're deliberately designed to be the most alien aliens in Trek's history. They're strange crystalline dudes who are wildly xenophobic, they live in a part of space that just slides into another dimension now and then, we've only ever seen one of them head-on, you could really make a nice mind-gently caress of a movie with the Enterprise trapped in Tholian space and trying to get out before everyone goes insane.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Okay I've got another idea for the next movie- the Enterprise becomes trapped in a time loop and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy find themselves going through the same argument over and over and over again. It's like that Next Generation episode with the poker game only louder.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't see how loudness wars make any sense in the cinema or DVD format. Maybe it's an attempt to avoid the film being overshadowed by the noises of the film in the next theater?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Wouldn't dying itself be the sacrifice? I mean, sure, yes, he comes back to life. But that's a bit like saying Jesus didn't sacrifice anything because he got revived, when the point of the story is that he went through unimaginable suffering and torture before the resurrection. (And in specific for Jesus, that God Himself underwent suffering and death, which is supposed to be impossible.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
I actually really liked the warp effect. It was reminiscent of the light-show approach of the TOS movies, but with the extra detail modern tech makes possible (the blue lines breaking up into little particles instead of just being stretched-out light). It had character. I actually think the thinking with Kirk's death may be partly backwards. In Star Trek II, Spock dies so that Kirk learns a lesson about death and how you can't cheat it forever. In Into Darkness, Kirk dies, and Spock, who had previously gotten Kirk in trouble for saving him, who had been ready to die, doesn't accept Kirk's death, and goes to beat up Khan to get his blood to revive him. It's Spock who is changed more by the experience. Maxwell Lord fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I guess I forget that at the time he was dead for sure, you're right about that and I overlooked it. Well, they kinda had to. I'm not sure how "it was made on a low budget" is actually a complaint rather than an observation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
The key with TWOK was they thought it would be the last one. The first movie was such a mammoth project and the cast was already older than usual for an action movie, they made this with the expectation that it was the end and so it's about death and aging and moving on for the new generation (hence Saavik). But it turned out the cast enjoyed making this one and were on board with making more except for Nimoy (so they let him direct III) so they changed a few bits to hint at Spock's return.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
I think the idea is, they have emotions, but they're trained not to show them or act on them. But it's kinda like being in a strict religious denomination, nobody's 100% about it. Sarek marries Amanda because he loves her, then justifies it to others saying it's "the logical thing to do."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:--hand held space cell phones that are capable of instantaneous faster than light communication Is this much more implausible than FTL communication, period? (Which would come into play whenever Kirk or whoever got a message from Starfleet?)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Dystram posted:I enjoy adaptations and remakes if they're good. My point is that if some talent-less hack takes an actual good story - not just good for fanboys but really good - and loving ruins it because for some loving reason he or she thinks they actually have talent, then fanboys should be able to bitch about it without paste-eaters coming in and saying "Durr but I thought it was good!" - of course you loving did; you walked in with absolutely 0 expectation and you left after getting at least a little entertainment - of loving course you are happy. So, in other words, "If I think the end product is bad nobody else should be able to come in and say it was good." What, objectively, constitutes a "talent hack who for some reason thinks they actually have talent"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Of course, there's no indication that Klingons warping into Earth orbit and declaring war won't happen later on. The whole idea behind the Admiral's plan is that war is coming like it or not, and so he thinks the only way to win is become a ruthless military organization. Kirk foils that plan, but the Klingons may still attack. I think that's not a continuity flaw, I think that's a plot hook left in there for later. The third movie is sort of up in the air at the moment, it could be anything, but the Klingons are still out there...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Even though I think Kirk's death gets too close to WoK it's a good movie overall. It does a good job confronting and rejecting the militarism of the Starfleet idea, and honestly that pre-title sequence, as short as it is, is pure "exploring strange new worlds" coolness. Plus as long as they've got Karl Urban as McCoy they're good. The first time he spoke in 09 it scared me how much he sounded like Kelley.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
The Vulcans were usually pretty jerky on old-Trek too. They have weird hosed-up mating rituals (the price of being super-logical is that every 7 years a male Vulcan just flips out), and they often are shown as not understanding emotions, like it's just something they don't have- whereas you have to be aware of your emotions in order to control them. It works for the purposes of the show, with the whole triumvirate, but it would be interesting if the Vulcans were shown more as people who know their emotions very well and thus are able to suppress them- like how in Dune, every character has a massive reserve of self-mastery and control because human training has just gotten that good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Ah, posting from the alternate universe in which Voyager wasn't just rehashed TNG and spec scripts rejected from other series. In the first season at least there is this sense of fun and exploration. It has a certain starry-eyed charm- it just never goes anywhere. (And also I think I gave it a longer grace period than most because A) I was 14 and B) that loving title theme.) It's interesting. TNG and DS9 both had sloppy starts but came together, Voyager and Enterprise both begin well but end up locked in the formula.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
The fact that Doctor Who- which has never had a reputation as a progressive show- beat them to LBGTQ representation is just insane. If any of the new Star Wars movies manage it before they do, their humiliation will be complete.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 17:09
|
|