|
Still surprised they didn't name the Dreadnought Starship as Reliant. That's the only thing that surprised me, given all the other references.
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
The film did one thing right: it really showed Khan's super-enhanced abilities. TWOK simply stated them and didn't really have the SFX to put them on camera.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Pretty sure it was just a space man-bra doing the pec work. Sort of how Shatner kept his space-toupee a "secret" all the time.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:It doesn't bug me that there was no Earth defense fleet but I do wish there was more civilian activity around the solar system. That secret Jupiter base bugged me because it should be like building a secret military installation in New York harbor. You'd never get away with it with all the ships passing by and seeing it. I'm not really sure that comparing Jupiter to New York works. Space is big, really big, and full of big empty spaces that no one would bother looking at. The solar system is big and 3d and the flight paths probably change every time the planets spin. A better comparison would be that randomly hanging around Jupiter is like randomly hanging around like Tristan da Cunha. Sure, you COULD go there, but how often? Who cares about it? No one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:So how did they find Khan? How did they find anything in space at all? For a story. Showing weeks and weeks and months of scanning empty space until finding something that stands out would be realistic and boring. The Jupiter analogy also works for something naval today. If your ships and subs are scouring the Pacific looking for a Japanese bomber or something, they're not going to scan New York harbor for anything. Mister Roboto fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:So let me understand: I think you're just being deliberately obtuse for some reason, so I don't really think I need to go into detail. The only point I was making was about the Vengeance construction and Khan, none of the rest. Did you not understand the naval analogy that if you're searching unknown and enemy territory, you are probably NOT searching next door as well?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
A great way to open the next movie is to have Carol Marcus pregnant...after she and Dr. McCoy got happily married. You know the rage would make it all worthwhile.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
korusan posted:According to everyone I've seen it with who has no prior knowledge of Star Trek, no it doesn't. I deliberately went into Into Darkness with zero spoilers. I had no idea Khan was coming. I've seen Wrath and TOS. When he revealed his name, it was great for me, a killer moment. Totally worth it to have avoided all Star Trek media for 2 years. I'm going to wager that if more people did NOT have Khan spoiled, they'd have enjoyed the film more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I want a race that can only communicate via dance and song. Therefore the crew have to learn all manner of dance, including alien. We could have a dance off and song off, a party dance and song, a peace dance and song, etc. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:She's more in the forefront but the degree to which her character is more important is entirely due to her relationship with Spock, rather than her as a person in herself. What was McCoy's character? He never really had any episodes to himself back in TOS. The appeal of TOS's acting was always the interplay between the characters, and that means Spock-Kirk-McCoy. Sure, Kirk was the main and got solo acts, and sometimes Spock got a few, but that's it. Scotty, Chekov, Uhuru and Sulu never got their own episodes. TNG started the trend of single-character focused episodes. Since these are movies, we HAVE to have the multiple-character interactions, there's no time for one to have all the spotlight. Besides Kirk and Spock.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:On Stormfront, mostly. I wonder what Stormfront's rating of Into Darkness was.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:This is an interesting point. Knowing the film involved terrorist strikes, I had something of an internal groaning reaction when the second scene involved a mixed race minority couple who were apparently up to no good. Of course Khan was manipulating them but it still wasn't a strong first impression for me. And to take that feeling further: If Khan was played by a full-Sikh actor, complete with cultural dress like a turban, the movie would have been SLAUGHTERED by the media and critics. Having a brown guy in a turban slam a gigantic spaceship into an American city? I actually feel a little disturbed just thinking about the complete shitstorm that would create. It could actually kill the Trek franchise again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I got this: maybe the answer is in the middle? There's a line about the transporters not working on that planet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Good analysis from SMG and Loch Nessus there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
On the topic of race, reminder of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjw6y4ClQwg Roddenberry knew what was up 40 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Should I bother to go see the film in theaters? Movie tickets are kind of expensive. For reference, I probably would have payed to see Trek 2009 once, but only just. Now I hear this is a kind of breathless, brainless, half-baked remake of Wrath of Khan that tries to jam in Klingons and races from setpiece to setpiece and then Kirk dies and comes back to life... I used to be a huge Trek fan but based on that description I'm not even sold on the price of one ticket. Should I go check it out or just make a note to rewatch Star Trek II sometime this year? Go see it in the theater just for the spectacle and cool scenes, not the story.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
The Warszawa, serious question: did you notice that the first new captain we see of the JJTrek universe was a brown guy? His ethnicity isn't 100% clear but his name was Captain Robau. He didn't have a huge role but he was a badass, went out like a hero AND he was smart enough to get his crew (and thus James Kirk) to safety before marching to his death. His actions were one of the first to have major consequences in this new timeline. They could've had any random actor there, but the first real hero of the JJTrek series was him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Some interesting background about Khan's character from the Trek wiki: In Carey Wilber's original draft of ""Space Seed"", Khan is a blonde criminal named Harold Erickson, who was placed in stasis aboard the Botany Bay as a means of getting rid of prisoners during an overpopulated era of Earth's history. Gene L. Coon's rewrites transformed the character into Ragnar Thorwald, the genetically enhanced leader of the "First World Tyranny", who hides behind the pseudonym John Erickson. Khan was played by Ricardo Montalban in both of the character's appearances. His casting prompted the writers to change the character's name to Sabahl Khan Noonien, after Kim Noonien Wang, a friend of Gene Roddenberry during the Second World War. Roddenberry had lost touch with him and hoped that his friend would see his name on television and contact him. (This was also the origin of the name of Noonian Soong.) NBC suggested changing the character's name to Govin Bahadur Singh due to the racial implications of the name "Khan", but Roddenbery insisted on keeping Khan and Noonien. ---- So that settles the debate. The name wasn't chosen for racial reasons or historical conqueror reasons: It was because Roddenberry wanted to homage an old war friend. And Roddenberry was NOTORIOUS for being anti-racist in every way possible, so that settles that. Reading anything else into it is sort of disrespecting Roddenberry's kind action. From now on, if you must debate Khan, do it as if he was named "Harold Erickson."  EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERIIIIICCCKSSSOOOON!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:If you're just having fun, I apologize, but people have advanced these arguments in all seriousness so it's hard to tell. Who knows? Anyways another big point is that the current profits are: Domestic: $210,491,000 Foreign: $201,700,000 Worldwide: $412,191,000 This makes it the most profitable film in the franchise, right? This pretty much guarantees the series has life for a good while. Unless 3 TOTALLY tanks, we've got lots to look forward to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
EgoEgress posted:Like, what was the point of the Admiral's daughter character other than the scene where she's in lingerie? Even months later, I'm amazed people still keep pointing this out. Was that 3 second shot really that distinctive a moment?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
EgoEgress posted:It stuck out (to me anyway), because it was so utterly pointless and unnecessary, and reflected how her character was so utterly pointless and unnecessary. I know it's useless trying to keep track of sexy-for-the-sake-of-it bits in media, but yeah, those kind of things stick out in my mind because they bother me. Does that make me the real sexist? No. But you must admit it's just an odd thing that a lot of people are fixating on. Especially as Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future was hugely into free sexuality and everyone was sexually uninhibited. It was only editors and suits that kept him from going as far as he could. He probably would've had Kirk and Spock legit having sex at some point if he could.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 04:04
|
|