|
FrensaGeran posted:The spoiler says "it is established early on..." but we don't know the context. Whether that character knows about that ability themselves isn't known for sure. It's possible that's how he saves the little girl from the preview.
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
korusan posted:Bringing back Khan isn't really rehashing Space Seed either if the spoilers are to be believed. The Dark Knight has proved you can take an iconic character who's already had a great performance done unto him, tell a completely different story with a new actor, and have it be just as entertaining, except in different ways. That's another thing too. For some reason reusing a character* is somehow taboo unless it happens to be from a comic book property. *this is ignoring the race aspect, which is a legitimate concern but is not what people are bitching about
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I dont think we are serious. I dont know how you could have thought that. Never underestimate nerd sperg.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:
Even if he's not either. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:He sure looks it in every picture I've seen of him, but I'm not that familiar with him to begin with. Hazel-ish eyes maybe, but clearly dark hair. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Well, as far I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on them, not people crying foul. Considering their first choice, they knew, at some point during casting, that maybe the villian shouldn't have been played by a whitebread actor. Long before they started casting, there were calls from some corners of fandom to cast a latino or Indian if they were going to bring back Khan. If I saw this in theater without spoilers, my jaw would have "dropped" because my thought would be "But he's a white dude! Come on!" If you're going to boycott it due to race issues maybe actually do so then? It's not as though companies magically make less just because you don't see it on opening night.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
der juicen posted:What. The. gently caress. I sometimes wonder if you had people in the 1920s sperging out about John Carter and the like.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Siroc posted:Please tell me 3D in theaters is much better than using blue/red paper glasses for that 3D youtube trailer. Those paper glasses are awful. This is my first 3D movie. It's more like grey and a darker shade of grey.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Alright, so Starfleet creates and trains a powerful man they think they can control for short-sighted ends. Sometime in the future he comes back to haunt them, commits acts of terrorism against foreign government buildings and caps it off by hijacking a spaceship and crashing it into a city. It sounds like making Khan a minority would've been problematic in itself then.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Again, super glad people are enjoying these movies, because hey, they're kind of enjoyable spectacles, and something that provides fun and joy is good. But I'm legitimately stunned that people are able to get this kind of reading from the reboot. I have a hard enough time getting past the feeling that I'm being talked down to by the film that I can't even fathom there being any cogent critique of the franchise (and that sounds bad, I know, but it's honest). Granted, I've never found the flaws inherent in the Wild-West-in-space/Hornblower-in-space to be as disturbing or crippling as you and Mr Flunchy seem to, but perhaps that very audience is the one these films are aiming for? I haven't seen the new film yet, but it sounds like these messages are coming more from Into Darkness and Trek 09's contribution only really make sense in hindsight. The first film is less about Starfleet specifically but more about the characters of Kirk and Spock, and of course the personification of the Trek nerd in Nero.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:OK, gonna need a bit more than that, because... what? I'll quote this, it explains pretty well (and elaborates on the reboot's themes in general): api call girl posted:Not being a serious "hardcore" Trekkie or anything, and only going by what's been posted in this thread and that linked imdb spoiler review, let me try to piece together some coherent ramblings on the Star Trek reboot:
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I'm excited for Cummerbatch, but I watch a lot of BBC stuff so I'm probably not the norm. It's fair to say there's a market for people who have seen BBC material (which is primarily young people) but that it won't capture an older demographic or one which isn't interested in outside media that much.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Wouldn't you prefer a situation where he was more of a legitimate supergenius who was capable of out-smarting the Enterprise crew easily? No, because Kirk has to win at the end.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:So did JJ Abrams block out other ethnicities from applying for the role or have I missed something about TrekGate. AbramsGate. StarGate. He had a hispanic guy as his first choice, that guy dropped out, and Cumberbatch was his second choice. That's about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:If the story has established him as south asian, then probably a south asian actor. The intense defensiveness is weird. Earlier we had someone suggest without apparent irony that south asian actors are just supposed to self-segregate and find roles in Bollywood instead of Hollywood. Except people have said with zero irony that they would be fine with a(nother) hispanic man playing a south asian man.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:If that was the case, Trek fans wouldn't really like any of the movies. Trek series and Trek movies have always been distinctly different in the stories they tell, mostly because movies are expected to have bigger and flashier stories. You'd never in a million years get a Trek movie like The Inner Light, even though that is one of the best Trek stories around. Because with a series you can mix the slower stories in with the more action oriented stuff throughout a season. With a movie you have one chance every few years to get a story out there with as broad of an appeal as possible. I suspect that many Trek fans were very young when they saw the films for the first time which explains things like why the "even Treks are good" rule includes First Contact.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Fair enough on agreeing to disagree about that scene. It really affected me and brought tears to my eyes and didn't make me giggle one bit, but affective reactions are personal and nothing to argue about. I mean hell, they even specifically condemn drone warfare (the military is going to use advanced weaponry to bomb a place in the desert from a safe distance in order to kill a terrorist who's hiding there).
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Yet, in a hilarious twist, this film is extremely popular with people who don't get the callbacks for the most part. Then the movie was competently made, except for people who want to hate it (or in other words, it's competently made). Happy Noodle Boy posted:
Yeah, I think he meant "the whole Nero thing doesn't count because 'huge fuckoff spaceship'. "
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I meant 'given' in the sense that the script really has her do two things. That's true of any protagonist not named Kirk or Spock though.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
qntm posted:
Well, none that we see. That is a year after the events of most of the film.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Except if a major point of the film is that you should put the bad guy on trial instead of killing him via remote control, you should at least show that he had a trial. The major point of the film isn't specifically "Khan needs a trial", it's "Kirk shouldn't do the wrong thing", which in this case is "unilaterally killing a guy and sparking a war." Arguably, you could include in the montage at the end Khan being declared guilty and being frozen, but it's implied at the time that yes he got a trial because Kirk isn't a terrible person.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Red Crown posted:Spock finally gets Comms working - he has enough power to send ONE message. Okay, say you're Starfleet, and you receive a message from your top Admiral, saying that a ship had gone rogue and they are pursuing it. Later, you get a message from that ship in question, saying that the Admiral is dead because of a Superman they let infiltrate the most dangerous warship in the entire fleet, oh and please believe us when we say that the admiral is evil and wanted to start a war. Who do you think you would believe?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not sure how convincing the movie is at making that statement. It probably depends on whom you're asking, but I'm sure most people watching this will quite enjoy the action scenes - most of which are, of course, scenes of war and violence. Exploration relies a hell of a lot on violence, the whole point of exploring the unknown is that you don't know what's out there. And really the most "action packed' part of the film has Kirk doing something wholly nonviolent to anyone but himself - he's saving the Enterprise from destruction.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't see how former relates to the later. Because this is a galaxy full of strange alien creatures and savages that want to murder you. In fact, the savages are probably the best case scenario since you know how to deal with them instead of space magic or whatever was featured in TOS. quote:
The scene I mentioned was the centerpiece of the film, it defined the central themes of the movie. It also took up the most amount of the film compared to the other two scenes. And actually, Spock beating up Khan is central to the thesis because he did not kill Khan, he disarmed him. That takes restraint and is counter to what the antagonists in the film did. Khan killing the Klingons is the obvious counter to this - it's meant to represent that Khan has no restraint. And that's a bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted:
Let me introduce you to a movie called Doctor Strangelove.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted: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). It wouldn't have FTL drives. In other words, it wouldn't be a Trek movie.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Odoyle posted:From a million pages ago but "this." There's no reason that Admiral Robocop had to walk up to the same pod and easily could have thawed out another Augment superman named John Harrison. That would have been awesome, actually, and then no matter how badass he is we'd be terrified to discover that Khan is still out there and an even bigger badass than Harrison. Perfect setup for a sequel down the road and doesn't trigger spergrage like this. Unless you're bored of supermen and you don't want to turn Star Trek 3 into Pirates of the Caribbean 3.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Heck they could have just said that one of the differences in this timeline is that Harrison gets defrosted instead of Khan, and but since all of the supermen are pretty much unstoppably freaks he's just as dangerous. Yeah, but that doesn't really solve the problem. If you mention Khan at all and never show him, you set up people wanting him for a future villain or give them massive blue balls. If you don't mention him, then you've got one of the more iconic factions from TOS, but taken away the iconic leader, and people would be criticizing the film for doing that. Basically, if your end goal is "I want to cover everything about genetically enhanced people in one movie" then the antagonist has to be Khan.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
That Rough Beast posted:
Again though this completely ignores that any other Federation ships would be on the side of Marcus. He's the "good" guy as far as they're concerned.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Darko posted:The complaint is that any emotional resonance is lost because of the too-obvious telegraphing, which is the exact opposite of the movie it references, which had strong emotional power. The only real way for that to hit anywhere near emotionally is to actually go through with it, which there was approximately 0% chance for that movie to do. And as mentioned in the spoilers, a near equivalent amount of emotion was realized through the character going through a realization of their death, even if they didn't stay dead forever.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Khan's blood cures radiation poisoning. Obviously it doesn't cure crazy. If it did, we wouldn't have a Wrath of Khan movie. (because Khan is loco as gently caress)
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The solution to "this plot has seriously unfortunate racist implications" (which, by the way, don't go away since Khan is textually nonwhite, just being played by a white actor, not to mention Noel Clarke's nonwhite suicide bomber) is not "start whitewashing" but "reconsider the plot." So you're saying any plot that resembles 9/11 is off limits to non-white antagonists?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Uh, absolutely not and if you read the post I made after that, you'd know that I was saying that racist implications are a reason to be considerate in how stories are told, not to not tell them. How would one "be considerate" in this sense? Given, of course, that the main theme of this movie is "American foreign policy post-9/11 was bad and stupid".
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think this movie would've been fine if Khan had been nonwhite, because it portrayed his motivations, etc. Which makes it pretty bad that they whitewashed him, to be honest, and pretty loving galling when people insinuate that the whitewashing was either altruistic or better than not whitewashing. I was making a general statement about racist implications in movies generally. It wouldn't have been fine though. Plenty of people would be complaining that a central asian guy crashed a stolen flying machine into buildings on the waterfront.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:It's great that you don't think it's a problem. That doesn't change the fact that it is. It's bad enough that there are precious few strong, leading roles for non-Caucasian actors, but when you start taking the few roles that are and giving them to white people...yeah, I don't care if you are the director, that's a problem. Just look at The Last Airbender. Shameful. Then again, you have people saying "I wanted Khan to be hispanic because Khan has always been hispanic" without a trace of irony.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Riso posted:Quite frankly, if a character is supposed to be from a certain region, I expect him to look like people in said region. I agree, I just also believe that if you think a Hispanic man looks like an Indian man, you're kind of racist. Phylodox posted:Yeah, that's problematic, too. For 1967 it was really progressive to have an Indian character who was strong and commanding. It was progressive to have cast a lead role as non-white (albeit Mexican rather than Indian). Keep in mind, this was less than a decade after Mickey Rooney played a horrible, horrible Asian stereotype in Breakfast at Tiffany's. What people should have been doing is complaining that the studio didn't even *consider* an Indian person for the role. Instead, the general impression given is that most people would have been perfectly fine if Del Toro had taken the role instead of Cumberbatch.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:
Except that it makes more sense for Khan to be a willful terrorist. Remember, this is the guy who killed most of the upper command of Starfleet and bombed a military base because he thought his crew had been killed and as far as he knew the exact same thing had just happened. Changing that would make him an inconsistent character. And really, just in general Khan is basically the worst person you want to be portrayed by a minority because he's comically evil. Like, as a defining feature of his character he's literally a Neo-Nazi.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
Riso posted:And that is all thanks to the lovely writing presented to us in this movie. No, that's literally who Khan is. You don't get to rule 1/4 of the globe without killing quite a few dudes (and the Superhuman stuff literally makes him an Übermensch).
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Seriously. Stop using lazy writing as an excuse. Until Into Darkness Khan was never presented as a terrorist. He was a monarch. A despot. A great military leader and tactician. Nothing in the movie necessitates that Khan be a mad bomber type terrorist. The basic themes and metaphors aren't dependent on it. The only reason it's needed is to make your 9/11 metaphor completely obvious. You mean except the events of Wrath of Khan where he's planning on using a missile in a last-ditch effort to destroy the Enterprise? And plenty of rulers were terrorists. Mao is a pretty easy example but there are lots of others.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Phylodox posted:Not sure what your point there is. He wants to kill Kirk, yeah. By that point it's just a personal vendetta, though. Does that make him a terrorist? He doesn't strictly want to kill Kirk, he wants to kill everyone aboard the Enterprise. And as I said before, being a despotic monarch ≠ not being a terrorist.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:35
|
|