|
Hit Man posted:Can't get past how they can cast younger versions of every cast member portrayed ethnically accurate to date Not entirely. Sulu is Japanese, but he is played by a Korean (John Cho). DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 19:07 on May 16, 2013 |
#
¿
May 16, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Bolian Blues posted:I could be wrong but I don't think Sulu's ethnicity has ever been specifically stated. Sulu isn't even a Japanese name, or at least it isn't here in the 21st century. Roddenberry supposedly intended it as a reference to the Sulu Sea to avoid identifying the character as any specific nationality. I'm pretty sure Hikaru, his first name, is a Japanese name.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Medoken posted:I simply can't enjoy a movie that abandons its own sense of consequence so cheaply. Kirk died with not a hope in hell of being revived, at least from his perspective. His actions in the movie drove his character arc, which ended with him sacrificing himself for his crew. Him being revived doesn't lessen what the sacrifice meant to him and the characters around him, and the respect he gains from the act could be used for future story fodder. Keeping him dead is just another path the writers could have taken, but it isn't inherently superior by any means. WarLocke posted:That was his stated complaint; but looked at another way it's just an excuse for him to try to hit the brakes before Kirk goes off to start a war with the Klingons. Yeah, it was a legitimate complaint tied to a much much larger worry he had concerning the mission itself. He tried to use engineering excuses to change Kirk's mind. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I had no idea going into it that it was a re-imagining of Wrath of Khan, but then it hit me as the movie went on and I got so excited about it. I'd consider it more a re-imagining of Kirk and Khan's first meeting rather than WoK, since Wrath is about Khan seeking vengeance against Kirk based on how things played out the first time they met.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Pick Hard posted:I empathized with Spock. Here's a guy, who can shut off his emotions to face death, watching his best friend, who can't, die terribly. Where Spock's sacrifice in WoK is sad and noble to Kirk, Kirk's sacrifice in this one is pretty horrifying to Spock. Quinto and Pine are excellent in that scene. Yeah, that scene was designed to be more about Spock's reaction to Kirk dying than Kirk actually dying. And Quinto really loving sold having an absolute war going on inside his head as he tried to suppress the emotions he was feeling. That performance is what made that scene exceptional.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm also guessing Khan's super hands have the ability to not be stained by blood and gore, either. Dude didn't even so much as reach for a paper towel. He wipes them on his black outfit. This would have probably been more apparent if they had included the cut scene where he just demolishes a bag of Cheetos, and his uniform turns about 30% orange. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 00:45 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:That scene is kind of ambiguous but I took it as Spock mind-melds with Khan and Khan freaks out because now he is feeling his/Spock's cranium starting to buckle; smart move by Spock to get Khan's hands off of him. I totally missed that. Definitely something to look for on my next viewing.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Spock screaming out "KHAN!!!" is one of the most embarrassing pieces of fan pandering I've ever seen, and everyone responsible for that moment should feel ashamed. I wouldn't be surprised if they (Abrams and the writers) knew exactly how cheesy and fan service-y it was, and did it just because the idea entertained them and it worked within the context of the scene. It's only bad because we've seen it before and recognize it as a big callback.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Hang on They didn't find this out until after Khan surrendered.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
ColonelKlink posted:Lol Sulu as captain (Star Trek 6) I don't think that was a callback so much as something that just made sense during that situation. He already pretty much commanded/independently piloted the ship during the climax of Trek09, where he intervenes during Spock's suicide run at Nero's ship.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Oh, yeah, and as for actual "plot hole" nitpicking I found the sudden appearance of Earth in the final action scene really jarring. They could've done some more work to establish that both ships were hurtling towards earth rather than just sort of hanging out in space somewhere, and I also would've appreciated some sort of quick demonstration of why the two Enterprises were the only two ships in thesky. Star Trek has never handled the 'Home' fleet well in any incarnation. It's simply never there when it should be.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
jivjov posted:It was something he was going to develop in the future. I imagine in the Prime Timeline, Scotty figures it out later on in life rather than early on in his career. (A lot like the Transparent Aluminum thing from Voyage Home) Not only this, but he likely discovered the Transwarp Beaming technology post-DS9/Voyager since he spent the last years of his life in the TNG era rather than dying with Kirk and the others in their own era. This would make that specific technology about 130 years more advanced than anything found in the JJTrek era. DentArthurDent posted:One thing I would have liked more of: Khan working with the crew against the real villain. The problem is that Khan is just as much of a real villain as Marcus. This movie features two primary villains that happen to be working against each other, but with Khan it makes you initially feel sympathetic towards him (until you find out he is basically Space Hitler). The alliance between Khan and Kirk lasted just about as long as it was ever going to last. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 21:49 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I kind of wish this hadn't been in the movie at all. Not only did it serve no real purpose, but after the first movie we've firmly established that this is an alternate timeline. We don't need to bring Spock Prime back to emphasize that. Cut the cord and let NuSpock and the rest of the crew find their own way. At first I kind of thought this, but then I realized that not asking Spock Prime about a guy that likely showed up in his era would be a near plot hole in itself. The guy is a huge resource, and JJ Spock avoiding him as a resource in situations where his knowledge might have a chance of saving lives would be bad writing. Spock Prime is a part of the JJTrek timeline at this point, ignoring that fact would be lazy writing. 3Romeo posted:Edit: Watch this and then watch Wrath or Undiscovered Country again. It's amazing how caffeinated and sanitized the new series is. How exactly is it sanitized? Both JJTrek movies have been pretty unique considering they re-use characters and situations. A straight remake could be considered 'sanitized', I guess, but these movies are using existing tools in far different ways than their predecessors. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 22:29 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Avynte posted:I can see why longtime Trek fans would hate it though. The focus on slick effects, frantic pacing, and action-adventure over exposition into the nature of Humanity and it's place among the galaxy is pretty much the antithesis of traditional Trek. 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. JJTrek 09 was very successful in appealing to a very broad audience, and these movies are exactly what this franchise needs, especially if we ever want to see another TV show again (where we will finally get our "real Trek" back). DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 03:12 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Trying to reduce what's wrong with the film down to the fewest number of words, and this is currently the winner. Yet, in a hilarious twist, this film is extremely popular with people who don't get the callbacks for the most part. Count Chocula posted:Did anyone else find the opening scene a bit problematic, with its unironic primitive natives? Why would having unironic primitive natives be problematic? DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 15:04 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
I saw it for a second time this morning with my dad. The Khan!!! scream didn't seem as cheesy the second time around, and drat that scene with Kirk dying is great. Quinto delivered some fine acting there. I was amused that when Peter Weller showed up, my dad leaned over and tells me, "Oh hey, Buckaroo Banzai." Everyone appreciates a little Banzai.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Particularly since those moments are going to fall flat to anyone who isn't familiar with the original series. Interestingly, only the people who are familiar with the callbacks are bitching about the callbacks. I seriously don't think the Kirk death scene is falling flat to anyone, since even the most critical people are begrudgingly admitting it was pretty well done. Most of the callbacks are little things that wouldn't affect someone who doesn't catch them. In fact, one reason I consider most of the "pandering" in this film to be pretty well done is because it's done within the confines of the plot. If you miss a callback, you aren't missing anything important. They are just interesting plot level Easter eggs.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Eiba posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance The British have had a number of fantastically 'gently caress you' ship names throughout history. http://www.demosnews.com/piece.php?8.11 The HMS Tormentor is my favorite. I mean, come on, you can name a warship something like the Flower Child, but that isn't going to make the people on the receiving end of your weapons payload feel any better about their situation. British names are just honest. Gio posted:Maybe this is a bit of That's the thing about the Prime Directive, though. Sure, they may have altered the future of those people, but had they followed the Prime Directive by the book those very same people would be dead. They were never even supposed to try and stop the volcano from exploding. Kirk already broke the rules by intervening, he just broke them further by revealing the Enterprise in his rescue of Spock. Kangra posted:One question I had about Carol Marcus. There were two very quick shots that suggested to me that she's already pregnant. Was that meant to be implied? I have no idea what shots you are talking about and I'm positive they weren't implying what you think they're implying. There's no reason for it, really. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 15:51 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 15:43
|
|
, but
|
Gio posted:lack of intrigue I'd argue that isn't entirely fair to this film. This movie does a really good job at keeping you wondering exactly what the hell is going on. It doesn't rely on it's high profile reveal of Khan to carry the story. It uses it as a way to further the mystery of the facts surrounding their mission. The Khan reveal doesn't make you uneasy about Khan being there, it makes you uneasy about what his presence implies about the current situation. Then Admiral Banzai shows up and things start to go south incredibly fast. EDIT: And I know it's mostly personal preference, but I thought the pacing was wonderful. There were no moments where I was like, "Okay, get on with it", and the movie felt a lot shorter than it actually was. I think the mysteriously short travel times were worth the increased pacing in the film. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 16:50 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:
Then Marcus's plan would have worked exactly how he wanted it to.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
nelson posted:There was a visible digital countdown timer on it. What alternate reality puts visible timers on ammunition? This has been a Hollywood thing for a long long time.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"First star on the right, straight on 'til morning" I was almost certain they were going to do that bit and was surprised they didn't.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
People keep saying this movie was a rehash of WoK, but the plot doesn't resemble that film in almost any way. Just because the movie has Khan and dueling Federation ships doesn't make it a Wrath rehash.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:TWoK is in large part: I'm pretty sure the Reliant was not intended to be a superior ship. It just happened to get in the crucial first shots because Kirk wasn't fast enough in realizing the Reliant was a threat. Also, since you pointed out shallow similarities I'll point out differences. -Evil Federation commander who isn't Khan. -Conspiracy subplot. -Klingons -Earth is threatened -No real space battle takes place, since the Enterprise gets beat to poo poo immediately and pretty much stays that way. -Khan isn't out for revenge against Kirk, because they just met. -Khan doesn't die nor does he lose his crew. The similarities to WoK are mostly fan service/homage bits. Otherwise the two stories have very little in common. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 17:35 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Sorry if that bums you out, but whitewashing sucks and films shouldn't do it. I think a filmmaker should make the movie they want to make, and cast who they want to cast in a role. If they are getting pressured to cast a white guy in a role that previously went to a minority (or even vice versa really), then sure...that is bad. Studio interference almost always sucks. But if they chose the change for purely creative reasons (and the character's ethnicity isn't crucial to the character), then I don't view it as a problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:The point of this whole discussion (which I think has gotten a bit lost) is whether or not a person with brown skin can portray a villain in today's media without being perceived as a terrorist or a terrorist analogue. In alternate universe Something Awful, the one where an actual Indian/non-white was cast as Khan yet the script stayed the same, all the 'whitewashing' arguments have turned into "Why is the brown guy always a terrorist??? This movie is racist!" arguments. I'm sure that argument would be just as god drat tired as this one is at this point. EDIT: The idea of a female Indian Khan has now popped in my head for some reason, and I find the idea fascinating.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:I wonder how much nerd rage there will be when they reboot TNG? If Worf ends up being played by a white guy under the makeup, is it 'whitewashing'? I'm curious, since pretty much every ethnicity has played a Klingon at this point.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:All of which is irrelevant, anyways. Khan was Indian. Space Seed established that. Cast an Indian to play him. Period. But Montalban was Mexican. Can I cast another Mexican or does it have to be an Indian? Can I cast a Mongolian? What if I change the character's name to Bob Khan? Can I cast whoever I want in that case? EDIT: Bob Caan. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 03:34 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It is, however, really loving racist and people should stop doing it. See, this is where I disagree. Basically, following this line of thought, JJ Abrams is now potentially a huge racist. So is Ronald D Moore for changing Tigh from black to white. If you have a different vision of a character, but that would involve the character being moved from minority to white, you are automatically being tremendously racist. This sort of absolute stance comes off to me as intensely stupid. Most absolute stances can get dumb, though, even if their intent is noble. Honestly, I'm more uncomfortable with watering down the term 'racist' than I am with non-malicious whitewashing. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
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. External threats in Trek have always produced internal conflicts (the Maquis, the conspiracy in ST6, and a ton of smaller scale things), and the setting is not entirely post-scarcity so you do still have to factor that in. A lot of the "not Trek" arguments completely gloss over the fact that Trek isn't some one note franchise. Visually, the movies are obviously different, and they tend to be faster paced. Section 31, Federation ships fighting, terrible Federation leadership, conspiracies...this poo poo isn't new for Trek. "Not my Trek" prompts the biggest  from me because it makes it clear the person has no loving clue about Trek, or has chosen a handful of episodes to represent what the franchise is all about. Honestly, any show that has been around for 28 seasons and 12 movies is not going to be able to be shoehorned into one type or overarching philosophy. I do understand, however, not being into certain types of Trek stories. TNG and DS9 are definitely shows that are different enough that a person could enjoy one and not the other. Each show has a different tone it sets, and while there are a lot of obvious similarities, the differences at times can be pretty substantial.
DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 17:10 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Except in JJAbrams world Starfleet quite clearly is a military organisation. No more than it ever has been. Starfleet ships have always been armed and ready, but they are designed to be multi-role. They even make note of this in the movie by stating outright that the Vengeance is the only Starfleet vessel designed solely for war. EDIT: If I remember Trek canon properly, Starfleet has already had a war with the Romulans by the time JJTrek takes place.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:RLM go into this: Khan tells me he cares deeply about his crew - he acts like a sociopath, Kirk and Spock tell me they're friends - really they should just hate each other And this is one of many examples where RLM misses the mark. Sometimes they'll really think about what's going on in a film, and other times they seem to just half rear end it and just say whatever. Khan being a dangerous rear end in a top hat has nothing to do with his feelings for his crew, which are consistent throughout the film. He never stops worrying about the safety of his crew, and when they detonate the torpedoes on the Vengeance he freaks out. Kirk and Spock established their respect for each other in the first movie. This film went out of its way to show that despite their differences, their friendship was actually pretty strong. It's just that the friendship between a human like Kirk and a Vulcan can be pretty volatile at times because each side has expectations that aren't always met.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:To play devil's advocate: It's just as plausible that Khan doesn't give a poo poo about his crew, only says he does to manipulate Kirk's sympathies, and is angry when the torpedoes detonate because they've wrecked his nice new ship. Except that interpretation relies on things that the movie doesn't show you. His actions in the movie only point to him being completely sincere when dealing with his crew. It's arguable that the only reason he's comfortable with them beaming 72 torpedoes onto his ship in the first place is that he's already figured out that Kirk and Spock wouldn't just kill his entire crew outright. Spock just happens to outsmart him while at the same time living up to Khan's belief about their unwillingness to do something so cold.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:in fact with regards to Pike's assessment of him at the start he takes a crazy suicidal decision at the end and then is saved by blind luck Pike told him that his disregard for authority and overconfidence was going to get him and his crew killed. The way things played out made it appear to Kirk that Pike's claim was about to come true at one point (when he apologizes to the crew right before the Vengeance is about to destroy them). This ultimately leads to his 'crazy suicidal decision', which was a choice to sacrifice himself for his crew because he felt responsible for getting them into the entire mess in the first place. The 'blind luck' of his actually surviving in the end actually lets the character learn from the situation rather than just being dead. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 16:01 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:TWOK simply stated them and didn't really have the SFX to put them on camera. Montalban's chest disagrees. 
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not convinced. How did overconfidence and disregard for authority get Kirk where he had to sacrifice himself? In this movie, he followed orders, he went by the book instead of (trying to) killing Khan out of revenge, and he was betrayed, and that's why the Enterprise is crashing. Kirk wanted to catch Khan so badly he came to Marcus practically pleading to get his command back to chase him down. Marcus instantly saw Kirk as a patsy for his plans because it was obvious that Kirk was pissed and looking for blood. Add to that Kirk's growing reputation as a loose cannon, and Marcus would have been an idiot to not choose him as a pawn. Kirk blindly took on the mission without initially considering what he was being asked to do because he was out for revenge. Ultimately he realizes that his orders are questionable, so he ignores them and captures Khan instead of killing him from a distance. Technically, he was once again disregarding authority by going against his given orders. He did not go "by the book". All of this leads him into a situation where his entire crew is on the verge of being killed because he bullheadedly rushed into action without giving enough thought to the strangeness of the orders he was given and the circumstances surrounding them. EDIT: One thing I thought the movie did well was creating the growing sense of foreboding as all of the different elements of the situation started coming together. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:He also added more licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. He stored his crew within the Tootsie Pops in an attempt to smuggle them to freedom.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Please explain this to me. For some issues the vastness of space is a perfectly reasonable explanation. Combine that with a limitation of sensor capabilities and you have an excuse for a lot of things. JJTrek ships don't seem to have the TNG style "know everything that is happening within a dozen light years" sensors. The ships in the movies only seem to know what's going on in their immediate vicinity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Uhura has already bumped Bones from the traditional big three main characters of the series. Isn't that significant enough for now? Especially considering it's an ensemble cast and she's never going to be placed above Kirk and Spock, who are always going to be the two prominent characters in the series. Uhura, as a character, is in a pretty good spot right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What do you mean by "significant enough for now"? How is Uhura bumping up to third/fourth lead supposed to wash away the shittiness of other conduct? I have zero issue with the Khan stuff for numerous reasons I've already stated in this thread multiple times. So in my personal opinion there is no 'shittiness' to wash away. What I was talking about were the ways being given to drastically change a character who is already in a superior and more prominent spot when compared to where she was in the original version of the series. Kirk and Spock are already the concrete duo that feature in classic Trek. Uhura is right behind them as the most prominent of the secondary characters. Drastically changing the character would provide very little return because there isn't anywhere further for her (or any of the rest of the cast) to go. Rounding out the character more would be great, though. This really applies to all the characters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 19:00
|
|