|
thrawn527 posted:I'd say the best odd Star Trek film is The Search for Spock. It mainly suffers from a somewhat lackluster villain after having just gotten away from Khan, and has some strange moments. But it's fun when it needs to be, and has Kirk experiencing real loss, which is rare. (Yes, he had just lost Spock, but since he gets him back in this movie, losing David is one of the few instances of real loss that sticks with the character.) Search for Spock also benefits greatly from being the bridge between Khan and Voyage Home.
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:young Kirk thrashing the car while listening to music my father would try to annoy his father with Did you just call "Sabotage" dad rock? What is wrong with you? thexerox123 posted:I don't think that's actually a thing, it's been exaggerated from, like, one example. (Spock) I thought evil alternate dimension Kirk also had a goatee.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Oh, man. I forgot about that vest with the sweet fringe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:I would be fine with them blowing it up if they replaced it with the one from Star Trek 1-6. That is the bestest version of the Enterprise anyway . . . Which one? The one from 1-3 or the one from 4-6?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:Been awhile since I've seen Wrath or Space Seed, but it's the preferred term for them in DS9 and Enterprise, that and DNA re-sequenced. Guess it sounds a little beter than eugenic superman. Nah, "Eugenic Superman" sounds scary and awesome. "Augment" sounds like something you buy off a Shadowrun equipment list.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
octoroon posted:I think the IP you're looking for is Deus Ex. Besides all the wizards and poo poo, what's the difference?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
octoroon posted:In practical terms not much, Deus Ex just throws around variations of the word "augment" like candy. Upgrades are "augs," etc. It uses the word in its various forms more than any other sci-fi I can think of. Ahh, okay. I was wondering why you were telling me that one cyberpunk reference was better than another.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I don't think the trek nerds were the intended audience though...are we really that big of a force that a plot point had to be scripted and Nimoy brought on in order to secure our dollars? Trekkers weren't necessarily the primary intended audience, but they are a large and vocal group, and their good will would definitely help sell the reboot to its primary intended audience. Would Joe. Q. Moviegoer go see a Trek movie that even the Trekkers thought was bad? Gatts posted:I'm disappointed they remade it into a forced actionfest without any substance. There's a great deal of substance to ST09. Even if you disregard all the metacommentary on fandom, remakes and retcons, there's still all the stuff about how identity and destiny are formed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:tl;dr It was necessary to bring existing Trek fans on board for the built-in audience. The alt universe chicanery was necessary because Trekkers are almost neurotic when it comes to small details. Yeah, this was my point. Even though they were clearly trying to appeal to a whole new audience, they needed the Trekker crowd who may have balked at a straight reboot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:this is Prometheus levels of dumb. I'm looking forward to this being a great movie that nerds refuse to understand. But seriously, those spoilers have me hells of excited.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I hope the climax is Kirk and his crew using Tribbles to defeat Khan. I hope Khan forgets that his giant evil enterprise can go up and down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:You're right, I am sure it's going to be just dandy as hell. This is a childish complaint. You are willing to accept that it's magic space blood, but at the same time unwilling to accept that it can do things that normal blood cannot do. You are getting angry at a science fiction film for containing a science fiction element simply because you find that element implausible. The entire loving film is implausible to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Honestly, the more I think about the blood, the more I like it. It casts Khan as a sort of evil Jesus. He is a man who has come back from the dead, and his blood possesses the power of resurrection. From a series that has given us the "evil Lincoln" trope, evil Jesus is hysterically appropriate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
I always thought it was pretty clever and subversive that the peak achievement of eugenics was not white.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I have no problems with an ÜberMensch being white. It makes the eugenics war seem more...disturbingly real. An Indian/Hispanic genetically engineered supersoldier seems less believable for whatever reason. Between WWII and countless movies, it's just in my head that way. See, that's what I liked about Montalban as Khan. Having a Latino as South Asian subverted your ingrained expectations regarding eugenics and supermen. And it was a nice little 'gently caress you' to the racists in the audience. But that said, I won't accuse Abrams or the rest of the crew of racism over this. I'm sure that after BDT couldn't play the role, their calculations were along the same lines that got Quinto the Spock role: find a capable actor that nerds love. And maybe, just maybe, they agree with you and find it more affective to have a blonde haired, blue eyed ÜberMensch.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even if he's not either. He sure looks it in every picture I've seen of him, but I'm not that familiar with him to begin with. Gyges posted:No one's called Abrams or really anyone else a racist. Whitewashing isn't really a claim of racism against individuals, but more an underlying nature of the system that needs to be changed. I didn't say anyone did. I just said what I wouldn't do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hazel-ish eyes maybe, but clearly dark hair. Ahh, I was going by the first pics that show up on Google.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:(Shrug) okay. I think that's relying on the viewer to bring a lot to the situation and bridge that gap. That's a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
ShredsYouSay posted:
Because crushing your opponent's skull is a more satisfying demonstration of your superiority, and demonstrating superiority is what Khan is all about. ComposerGuy posted:Not six. Six was the best. Six was totally an action/adventure movie.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:No, no, you're thinking of books. Books. It's not even an accurate description of books or even novels in particular. At best it is the primary goal of many books.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
I wouldn't call that sloppy. I would call that efficient. It is something everyone knows. Setting it up would be like setting up the Nazis in a WW2 flick.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Your argument is literally that since they cast the character in a messed-up way back in the 1960s, they should never ever try to do better. What is the proper way to cast a genetic superman who was birthed in a test tube? I'm of two minds on the casting decision, and neither of them have to do with white-washing. I appreciate Montalban in the original role as it was kind of a great gently caress you to the racists of the time--the pinnacle of eugenics is non-white. On the other hand, I appreciate Cumberpatch in the role because as another poster noted a page or two back, he recalls the myths of eugenics and aryan supremacy and all the horrors that entails. api call girl posted:Like, you guys realize the Wrath of Khan version of the Khan character, that's a SUN TAN, right? Really, the question we should be asking is: are Cumberpatch's pecs oily and defined enough for the role.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
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. Does the story, this story, establish him as such? What does that even mean in the context of a genetically engineered superman? Is that where his test tube was located, or is that where his genetic material was harvested? api call girl posted:Pictured: non-white pinnacle of eugenics What is your point? Montalban looks Hispanic in that picture.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Darko posted:Probably that his ethnicity/version of Mexican people are basically "white," anywhere but in the U.S., where "white" means, "does the majority accept you as part of the normal mainstream or not" which is why the palest possible region (The Irish) weren't even viewed as "white" for a long time. Ahh, I see. In that sense, Montalban is an even better gently caress you to the racists of the time because only they would see what their problem with him was.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Medoken posted:You're right. I somehow forgot about that. It's not. He's at its center. And keeping your central protagonist alive is not cowardice, especially in a franchise film with expected sequels. Hell, killing your central protagonist in the first place is a very risky move. The sacrifice is cheapened somewhat by how quickly he is brought back, but it's still a significant sacrifice that resonates with the characters and audience.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I will say that for the most part I liked it. Also that ironically I was more offended by Spock's body language during the Big Khan than I was the actual line. Rearing back like a werewolf and howling it to the heavens with bulging eyes and a god's eye camera angle? Even the original wasn't that silly. If he'd done the line resting his head against the safety glass and and curled up with grief, made it a dark, claustrophobic moment instead of a dumb explosive exultation I probably would have liked it. Maybe. Or not. The original has a shot of the moon with the scream echoing through space. It is super super silly. It is also awesome and one of my all time favorite movie moments.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I think the scream echoing in space, with the moon (and volume of the scream) slowly receding worked really well. It wasn't JUST the scream. I agree that it works. Like I said, it is one of my favorite movie moments, but its over the top theatricality is silly. As for this movie, I felt it was a great capstone to the scene. Quinto delivered a great yell; Spock has just realized how much Kirk means to him and is once again feeling those emotions he vowed not to feel. It's the second best delivery behind Pine's "Spock, I'm frightened," and the two bookend and solidify the great pathos of that scene, which I felt was just as resonant as the original.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Chewbacca posted:Sort of? But that's the problem. This movie has "Themes," like Kirk acknowledging and getting over his own egotism, bit it doesn't have much in the way of "Ideas," despite having plenty of opportunity. It's not that its stupid (at least in my opinion) it's just that its not smart. Take the 9/11 imagery, for example. It's recognizably in there, but the movie doesn't rally use it to say anything. 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. But I have to disagree about the lack of ideas. The film makes an explicit condemnation of post-911 post-Bush America and reminds not just Kirk but all of us that we are to be "explorers, not soldiers." We're supposed to be the Starfleet our ideals compel us to be, not the one we may feel inevitably drawn towards because of the depravities of certain actors and the realities of a complex world. I feel that is the same kind of idea that has always made Trek compelling and meaningful.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yeah. It was definitely my least favorite thing about the movie. Considering that the emotional peak of the film is a beloved member of the services losing his/her life because of the literal machinations of not-Cheney, it's a very appropriate dedication.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:I couldn't really have summed it up better than PeterWeller did earlier: Thanks man. I really think it's a poignant and important message, and it speaks directly to the American audience in a way that is blunt but not insulting. I don't know what to say about how well the film conveys that message. I found it obvious, but I was expecting an allegory, and some of my buddies didn't see it until I pointed it out.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted:I could pick on general crap instead of specific crap if you like. The movie is general crap. There you go. Except this movie is one long character building exercise wrapped around a social allegory. It's completely with the spirit of the original series. It's ironic because you seem to be missing this amidst the action you say blinds people to how crap it is.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
They recently revived a man who had been clinically dead for 45 minutes, and they had neither cryotubes nor the kind of space meds used in the gag stowaway sequence from the last film.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:Brain death by space worm = non-reversible. Brian death by being cooked by radiation = surprisingly easy to spring back from He explicitly was not brain dead.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:I was being facetious. But in the case of immediate death by radiation exposure, which is different from slow death by radiation poisoning, the brain would not be undamaged You were picking a nit while getting a detail incorrect. And the film explicitly states otherwise because it is science fiction and gets to make its own rules.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Because argumentum ad hominem is so much better A failure of Ethos is technically an ad-hominem, but Logos is not the only pillar of rhetoric.  Tony Montana posted:Because a well informed opinion is one with influences from all sources, not just the sources you agree with. Please explain what information they will add to the formation of my opinion. I don't want to watch a 45 minute web video. I want you to summarize it for me.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:People who like it as a dumb action movie will maintain that the issues the movie has don't matter I resent this characterization and it leads me to believe that you haven't paid attention to the arguments in support of the film. I like it as a smart, character-driven social allegory complemented by interesting space mumbo-jumbo and cool special effects and action, or in short: as a Star Trek movie.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:If that is the case, then I'd say the review is worth watching since it may very well change your mind. They point out the film isn't very smart, the action set pieces were seemingly created in isolation and put together with a small script in-between, much of the space mumbo-jumbo is silly, there isn't all that much characterization, etc. That sounds like they're just going to tell me that I'm wrong. But I know what I saw and I know how it resonated with me, my knowledge of Trek and its characters and these versions of those characters, and my knowledge of current events. I think the commentary that the film makes regarding those things is smart. I think the action pieces developed and highlighted those things. I know the space mumbo-jumbo is silly; it's space mumbo-jumbo, and I expect it to be silly. There is a great deal of characterization as far as I am concerned. I've explained why I feel this way. I don't want to watch a 45 minute video telling me that I am wrong, but I would love to read a post explaining why I am wrong. But I have yet to see one. Instead, I have seen posts complaining about the specifics of warp travel and ad-hoc plans, the feasibility of space mumbo-jumbo, and the particulars of fleet dispositions and chains of command.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:- How does fleet disposition make any sense? There aren't any fleets around Earth. There don't even appear to be any ships stationed around Earth, even though we know that the ships must have come there since the various Captains were there when Khan attacked SFHQ. Did these ships leave? If so, where did they go? If they were still around Earth, why didn't they do anything when the Enterprise and the dreadnaught were fighting within spitting distance? This doesn't matter. This is like asking why no other ships are dispatched to find out what happened to the Reliant or the Genesis Station or why only the Excelsior was dispatched to chase down the rogue Enterprise. quote:- How does the film make a commentary about using violence to fight terrorism when the resolution consists of violence against a terrorist? The film isn't taking a stance against violence. It is taking a stand against vengeance and urging us to seek justice instead. Clearly, some violence may be necessary in the service of justice. quote:- How does the film make a commentary about issues with drone warfare when Kirk's alternative to launching the equivalent of drone strikes is invading the space of another power, attempting to land on their planet, running from their border patrol, and later killing members of said border patrol? Do you think this is an acceptable alternative? See the previous answer. Apprehending and trying a terrorist is in service of justice as opposed to assassinating him from afar which is in service of revenge. The film is correct in pointing out that neither is without collateral repercussions. However, the death of a patrol crew is preferable to an all out war. And both options involve a violation of Klingon sovereignty. quote:- How does Kirk grow as a character? Spock? The rest of the cast? Do you think we are shown why the characters change (if so) or are we just told this? The entire movie is one big Kobayashi Maru that forges the crew into the people they must be so that they can finally go on the 5 year mission as the TOS crew we know and love. Kirk learns how to sacrifice. Spock learns how to control instead of suppress his emotions. We are shown all this through action and dialog; note that the film never "tells" you the Kobayashi Maru connection--it lets you figure that out from the nature of the challenges. quote:
Khan wants revenge and his crew. He's making his plan up as he goes because he isn't afforded the time to plan too far in advance. He flees into hiding on the Klingon homeworld because he think he'll be safe from repercussion there and will have time to formulate better plans. He may even have thought to offer his assistance to the Klingons. quote:- Why does Admiral Marcus need to keep his attempt at militarizing Starfleet a secret when Earth has recently been attacked and a key homeworld vaporized, not to mention significant parts of the fleet wiped out? Regardless of his ulterior motive to provoke war with the Klingons? Starfleet is not supposed to be a military organization. You see members of Starfleet itself tell each other this. It's that simple.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If their communicators were out then how did Spock have a chat with himself on New Vulcan? That's the first person he calls after comms gets restored. This is said in the film.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:They made a big deal of defending DC, including AA batteries and jet patrols, after 9/11. And remember Khan has already had his "Pentagon attack" moment by this part of the film. Khan's "Pentagon attack" used an atmospheric craft, so it wouldn't necessarily prompt an increase in space defense assets. Also, many of the people responsible for those space defense assets were killed or injured in that same attack. Really, any perceived problems with the apparently weak defensive footing of Starfleet can be answered with the facts that Starfleet is emphatically not a military organization and that many of its command officers were just killed or incapacitated.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 21:38
|
|