|
Snak posted:Well, because Trek is about allegories for modern society. In concept, the Federation is the society we want to change into. We can't actually quantify it or we will be making a concrete political statement and get bogged down in trying to define the perfect society. Captain Kirk takes the Enterprise out the fringes of known space and learns and teaches there, where moral allegories can flourish without the inherent contradiction of a society that is better than ours while still having all the same problems. The problem with that is that the concept of being an inspiring force to lesser civilizations is itself full of the trappings of colonialism and other nasty cultural artifacts (because those sorts of stories are based on real life adventures from the colonial era, eg Cook et all).
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Trailer time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szYGln3eNeA
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Junkie Disease posted:He said Star Trek, not hog poo poo. So why are you discussing STIV?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Into Darkness had interplanetary teleportation. Which can easily be hand waved in most situations the crew will be in. For example: you can teleport a dude across planets, but if you want backup it's going to take a while.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:We can teleport people between countries now but we still use planes and boats. Yeah, if anything people should be bitching about why they didn't just use teleporters to get people up to the space station in ST09 (or to the academy, or etc).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I know it's not the point of Star Trek but I'm super mad that it looks like the Enterprise is going to get it's rear end kicked yet again. I just want to see it shoot stuff and blow up another ship okay? This is supposed to be the flagship of starfleet and everyone has made it look like a chump. In fairness, by everyone you mean a ship with 200 years of additional technology and a ship built by the Space CIA to be the real best ship ever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:You know what'd be a good Star Trek III, set it 80 years after Into Darkness and be like yeah, the Federation and Klingon Empire totally went to war and poo poo's completely hosed---the galaxy is like a demilitarized zone, Federation society's turned militaristic and is run by Section 31 douchebags, large swathes of the galaxy have been wiped out etc. etc. and open it with a familiar character from the TNG era---probably Data would be best----and have him go back in time not to undo Into Darkness but to stop the Khitomer Accords from being sabotaged or something, there you'd have a movie. You could even cold open it with Kirk & crew getting wiped out in some battle in the opening scene and cut to 80 YEARS LATER w/e, as a sop to the people who really really want to see the new cast die for some reason. Yeah, I saw Days of Future Past too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:I watched TOS too and I dunno what you're talking about. One of the all-time top rated classic Trek episodes is basically a take on a submarine movie where the whole episode is a long duel between Kirk and a Romulan warbird, so yeah space navy battles is kinda there in the bedrock of the show too. And one of the most memorable ones is Kirk running around and beating a dinosaur with a dick rock.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Well, at least the JJ Abrams haters are attributing him to a series he actually previously directed, unlike the "Michael Bay" TMNT which is as much Michael Bay as Spielberg is for Transformers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Red posted:I dunno, Nick Frost was in Attack the Block. And uh Doctor Who! As Santa!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:I also love TMP, just for the pompous grandeur of it. I wonder if that kind of movie is long past, the kind that just wallows in scifi exploration, without feeling like it has to resort to frantic action or comedy sequences. Eh, I mean large chunks of Interstellar's run time don't really have either of those.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:True, but Interstellar was more focused on the family unit than it was the exploration. I think the exploration parts of it were great. I guess I just like the whole "completely unknown" thing. I imagine it's tough to write that kind of story and have it feel fresh. You'd have to clarify which movies you're talking about as previous examples. There's TMP and I guess 2001, but two films in about 10 years does not a trend make.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
The number of "non-Star Trek" films with the Trek label outnumbers the ones that do, even excluding the JJ films. Star Trek 4 especially is just a wacky film set in 1986.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Vulcans are space elves, and are treated as such (i.e., major assholes even if they are literally holier than thou).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Snak posted:They are treated that way by the human characters, but they aren't treated that way by the text, really. Until later, which I pointed out. The text is primarily from a human (i.e., Star Trek Federation) perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Emotions are not orthogonal to intelligence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Snak posted:No poo poo, that's the point of Spock's character in the series/orignal movies. You already said that the new films don't portray logic: Snak posted:Okay that's fair. "Best Scenes" was a poor choice of words. His two most highly showcased scenes in media and marketing are him punching Kirk and him punching Khan. The scene of him telling the Vulcan elders to go gently caress themselves is something that is kinda cool, but again I don't like it because it's painting the Vulcans as villains. All the non-Spock Vulcans in ENT and JJTrek don't act logical at all, they act like rear end in a top hat strawmen of intellectuals. They are suddenly "Athiest Professors". You are right about trying to save Vulcan and his mother. All you've actually shown so far is that when marketing a movie, using emotional scenes is more effective. That's not really a stunning observation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
lizardman posted:^True, but I think that's a FAR cry from "Set aside logic. Do what feels right', which to me sounds like a virtual dismissal of logic entirely in favor of going by your gut. It's important to note that this was said while Spock was considering giving up everything to sacrifice for the Greater Good of his species. In a way, Spock Prime is continuing the logic of Star Trek III in saying that (sometimes) the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
multijoe posted:Whatever your feelings about Into Darkness may be, that Starfleet dug up Hitler and put him in charge of the CIA is the point Not My Starfleet!
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Is there a popular film franchise from the last decade for which this isn't the default CineD analysis? A lot of complaints boil down to "this isn't exactly the way it was done in [original iteration of franchise] therefore it's bad".
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
Ah, so when you hear "message" you're interpreting that as "this is the intention of the creators". "Merely" using an aesthetic also transmits a message. Like a bunch of movies in the 80s have the aesthetic of "gently caress yeah Capitalism" even though their creators didn't explicitly put that out there.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Before you jet off to wikipedia to brush up on The Death of the Author would you try reading these comments in context? multijoe is explicitly referring to the intentions of the creators, in particular the screen writer. I'm interpreting "message" in exactly the way a conventional user of English would in this context. There are of course other ways to analyze a film but in this context we're explicitly talking about what the creator's "point" was when they chose to make the villains part of Star Fleet's CIA equivalent. So you're assuming every time someone says "This film says x" they mean "the creators of the film intended x". If you didn't assume that, you wouldn't say "well why does CD assume every movie released in the last decade says that???".
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
The only real similarity to TDK is "they catch the bad guy midway through but then he gets released somehow", except the context is completely different in ST:ID. Like Skyfall is the other one that is supposedly just like TDK and at least that one actually has the villain do some trick in order to escape.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is exactly the kind of trap I was warning about. You're focusing too much on the actual plot elements as presented in the script and ignoring how the themes, marketing and grimdark atmosphere are piggybacking on the huge popularity and success of The Dark Knight. I'm ignoring the marketing because I legitimately can't remember it. As for the other two, you're welcome to explain how the themes are similar but there's very little "grimdark" in the atmosphere. TDK literally ends with him being chased as a criminal, ST:ID ends with Kirk making a rousing speech while the bad guys are imprisoned/literally put on ice.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
I mean in fairness I can definitely see the marketing campaign being focused around TDK's success. The thing though is that the marketing campaign is often independent of the actual production of the film. That's how you get stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2TDSEG57hI
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
There's no coincidence at all to why that particular character was chosen to be gay. In that light, it's a pretty dick move to do it when the guy whose life you're basing it off of says it's not cool. Like, making Scotty or McCoy gay would have the same positive effect without the negative of "oh this is just George Takei again".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Is it really forward thinking if it's just "the same thing, but in space"? Like (eg) Interstellar's ending posits that humanity goes backward into an idyllic 1950s atmosphere, just in a tube this time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:How do you think bisexual people would feel about seeing a character identified as bisexual merely because "well of course he'll gently caress anything because he's so down to gently caress, dogg!" It's kinda implying that being bisexual means you're promiscuous by nature. I remember similar reasons for why Kirk couldn't be non-white. At a point it just becomes "yes, there are issues but representation is more important, especially from a main character ".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Similar in what way? Cnut basically said "yo Kirk likes to gently caress so much, they should make him bi", I pointed out "hey maybe bisexuals wouldn't appreciate being stereotyped as promiscuous, that seems like a bad reason to make him bisexual". What racial stereotypes have been used as an argument for making Kirk non-white? I'm struggling to think of what would apply. Specifically, Kirk couldn't be Hispanic because of how "hot blooded" he is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 13:03
|
|