|
Alchenar posted:Except in JJAbrams world Starfleet quite clearly is a military organisation. Except characters in the film explicitly state otherwise and a central thread is the antagonist's plot to surreptitiously turn it into one.
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:A knife is a knife, no matter how much you protest that it's a spoon. Their uniforms aren't very military. In fact, they're modeled on the TOS uniforms that were designed to not look like military uniforms. It is a response to a terrorist attack on that organization. Kirk and Spock do bat an eyelid. They aren't exactly stunned, but they are surprised. Considering what the Enterprise is doing in the cold open and the whole preparing for the Five Year Mission through-line, it would appear that Starfleet is primarily a scientific and exploratory organization. You're the one protesting what the film has explicitly told you. Certainly, there is a tension between militarism and a peaceful mission, and Starfleet appears to be becoming militarized, but that's a central conflict in the film.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The film tells me lots of things and then shows me something different (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). If it were a different kind of film then I would assume that it meant it was a satire. In this film I just conclude that it's poorly made and incoherent. Khan surrenders to save his crew. The film shows this to you. Kirk and Spock have conversations about their differences and come to better understandings of one another. Again, this is shown to you in scene after scene. Also, using show/tell as some meaningful dichotomy is silly. What a film shows you with visuals and action is no more reliable or meaningful than what a film tells you with sound and dialog. If you see a conflict between the two, you should consider its narrative significance.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:At the beginning, he wasn't willing to give up his crew, even if it may cost him his career. Kirk never even considers that he may lose his career over saving Spock. He is utterly shocked and flabbergasted when he discovers that Spock didn't cover for him and that he is losing his command. He doesn't think he will have to face the consequences. Later, he willingly faces the consequences. Alchenar posted:He hasn't actually learnt anything about pacifism and inner peace The themes of this film have nothing to do with pacifism and inner peace. You can't fault a film for not adequately addressing topics it never brought up. I've said this before: the film is not taking a stand against violence; it is taking a stand against revenge and militarism.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The Starfleet guy is literally trying to incite an immediate war with the most warrior-focused guys in the universe. He's secretly trying to incite a war. Parking a battle group (does Starfleet even have such a thing?) over Earth would give away the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Parking it over the Klingon homeworld would have done that too Winning usually does give away the game 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Django Unchained's Django is not an adaptation of Franco Nero's character Django anymore than Pam Grier's Jackie Brown is an adaptation of Steven Keats's character Jackie Brown in The Friends of Eddie Coyle So wait, are you saying that he's based on an Elmore Leonard character?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
penismightier posted:(Leonard's version of the character was named Burke, the name Jackie Brown comes from The Friends of Eddie Coyle which is one of those mid-70s low-budget crime thrillers that Tarantino eats up. I know. I'm a fan of Leonard's work and its film adaptations. I'd lose my poo poo if they ever announced a good Cuba Libre adaptation. The Warszawa posted:Honestly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a character in the general oeuvre of "darkly funny action/thriller/crime film" that isn't somewhat inspired, influenced, or just correlated with an Elmore Leonard character or plot. The guy's prolific. He also wrote a ton of westerns that have probably been adapted in some way or another.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
There is a point to the scene--it further displays Kirk's lechery and shows that Marcus is unfazed and even a bit amused by it. It is an awkward moment of blatant male gaze, but it's not pointless, and I suspect the dynamic it helps establish will be an important part of the characters' relationship in later films.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:but it's also super important to remember that Alice Eve the real live person didn't take off her clothes because she thought it would be a really cool way to showcase her character's personality, but because a screenwriter and production team thought "Now would be a good time for this character to take their clothes off for some reason". You don't actually know this. Alice Eve may have had a great deal of input in the construction of that scene. Even if she didn't, she consented to being in the scene, which presumes she was given some sort of character motivation or story explanation. You're version of events is a bit insulting to her actually; it implies that she is shallow or uncritical of her own work as an actress.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:"Hey, real women take their clothes off at times" is the funniest defense yet because you never see these movies show characters engaging in other irrelevant daily activities like brushing their teeth or taking a poo poo. But a hot lady changing, yeah, that's essential for verisimilitude. Never change, horndogs. I like the posts that don't quote the posts to which they refer because those posts don't exist. People have said that the scene is consistent with Carol Marcus's character and Alice Eve was a conscious participant in the scene. Nothing has been said about verisimilitude.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:SMG appears to be saying that since "women changing clothes" is a normal mundane activity, it doesn't need justification, as that would put it on the level of sci-fi canon-wank. He's not saying that. He's saying that the scene already justifies itself from a character standpoint and any attempt to provide further justification could obfuscate the character development going on in the scene. quote:The question isn't "What's the wookieepedia plot reason for the character doing this?" The question is "What's the artistic reason for this not being cut like the rest of the implicit changing/making GBS threads/napping scenes?" Yes, and for the umpteenth time, the answer is "character development". PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Or, as has been documented as happening in numerous motion pictures, it was implied to her that if she didn't do the scene they would seek out an actress who would be willing to do it, and then she would be out the exposure and money that goes with appearing in a huge budget blockbuster sci-fi franchise film. But no, the up-and-coming young actress appearing in her largest role to date probably really really wanted to have a scene where she appears in her underwear. I mean, if you're gonna start bringing in hypothetical thought processes, I'm probably gonna side with the one that's been demonstrably true for decades. You miss the point. I'm not the one who started bringing in hypothetical thought processes. You are, and you're making the mistake of saying one (that can be taken as an insult to the actress in question) is definite with no direct evidence. Supercar Gautier posted:Fun question: aside from the fact that she's disinterested in Kirk and confident with her body being visible, what are Carol Marcus' most clearly-defined personality traits in this film overall? She has an ego and sometimes overestimates her own skills. She knows a great deal about advanced weapon systems. While she loves her father, that love does not blind her. Cingulate posted:This is a genuine question, not an argument: how does the specific way the scene was staged, filmed, lit, post-processed, cut, ... contribute to character development? I really can't respond to the compositional questions. They're just outside my area of expertise. What I can say is that her smug "what, have you never seen a beautiful woman before?" expression is at the heart of the characterization going on in the scene. E: And I agree that it's sexy, but nothing says that you can't be sexy and develop character at the same time. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Why doesn't the camera focus her face then? Possibly together with Kirk's? Why are we at navel level, not at eye level? Perhaps her posing is also instrumental. Open arms are usually inviting, but by cocking her shoulders and leaning on one arm, she also appears dismissive. Perhaps we are at navel level to subtly position us as children in some veiled reference to Daniel Marcus and his absence. I really don't feel qualified to make firm claims about the scene's composition.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:And yet we've got DFu4Ever talking about how the scene enables the audience to appreciate beauty, and how titillation is like adding spice to food- so I'm going to guess the scene didn't cause him to feel "deeply anxious". The fact that people can come up with numerous defenses for the scene is itself an argument in the scene's favor. You say you're not trying to hold him to someone else's words, but you are. You are asking him to reconcile his interpretation with another that he may disagree with, as if this is some zero-sum game and there is only one right answer. If you don't see a point to the scene, but many others do, you should consider concluding that you simply don't see a point to the scene, not that there is no point to the scene.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Not at all. I'm asking him to reconcile his statement about how people react to the scene with actual viewers' actual reactions to the scene. Different people can react in different ways. I don't think he meant that as a definitive statement about everyone's reaction to the scene. It is foolish to presume that any of us are saying our interpretation is the definitive one (except for SMG  ).And we could certainly argue amongst ourselves about which interpretation carries the most weight and is the most consistent with the rest of the film and its predecessor(s). But we're busy responding to your non-argument. E: At this point, you have said you don't see a point to the scene, and you have received multiple explanations for why others do a see a point to the scene. You can choose to pick one, synthesize some, or disagree with all, but if you choose the latter, you need to develop some actual counterarguments. Our specific disagreements don't count. E2:VVVVV Fair enough. I'll edit the offending part of the post. My previous edit is a much better explanation of what's happening anyway. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I don't think it's remotely accurate to say that this has not been done. Don't pull this poo poo. On this page, you misinterpreted SMG, asked me a "fun question" and ignored my response, and then asked people to reconcile interpretations that don't need to be reconciled. It was an especially accurate statement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I was engaging with what I genuinely (if perhaps inaccurately) understood SMG to be saying. Fair enough. To me it read like you were deliberately misinterpreting him to get in another dig at "horn dogs". quote:I'm sorry that I overlooked your response to my question. However, I will note that of the traits you mentioned, all would be more relevant to present to the audience, and yet all are represented less emphatically than Marcus' complicated relationship with Kirkboner. This is an almost pathological habit in Hollywood; a female character's sexual status and positioning relative to the male protagonist is almost always treated as the most important thing to develop about her character- even if it has no bearing on any other aspect of the film. The scene is a vestigial limb and the "development" goes nowhere, and for that reason it rings false. I'm not sure they are represented less emphatically than her relationship with Kirk. I felt her insulted banter with Spock was quite emphatic as well as the presentation of her relationship with Admiral Marcus. I remember an entire scene where her calm and intelligence prevent McCoy from blowing up the pair of them. I'd also disagree about the development going nowhere. Let's not pretend this is a singular work that exists in narrative vacuum. It is part of a series. It will contain scenes that set up later parts of that series. It only takes a cursory knowledge of these characters' histories to understand what this scene is developing. And it does have a payoff in this film too: when Kirk welcomes as part of his crew. quote:And again, I did not ask anyone to reconcile their disparate intepretations. At no point did this happen. I expressed frustration at the logistical difficulty of taking on several of these incompatible stances at once, and the dishonesty of pretending that these stances somehow support each other. Okay fine, but that means you were being literal and obtuse. And yes, I suggested that you could try to synthesize their disparate interpretations because you if you found neither of them convincing. I presume they find their own interpretations convincing and don't need to do that. quote:Why, I'd have to conclude that the scene is simultaneously about admonishing and mocking Kirk for seeking sexual gratification from Marcus [SMG, Danger] while also providing that same gratification to the (assumed to be exclusively male) audience [DFu4Ever]. Why, that would render the scene completely disingenuous, as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, as Whedonesque. And isn't this a whole lot more interesting and worthy of discussion than "the scene is pointless." I kinda like the idea that the film tried to have its cake and eat it too. It speaks to the inherent paradox and difficulty in an industry dominated by white men trying to deal with race and gender issues and jives well with Abrams' conclusion regarding the scene. I'd only disagree as far as calling the scene disingenuous, and say it was poorly framed and thus flawed ironic gratuitousness instead. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is not? A few posts back, Ferrinus explicitly endorsed how this scene, same stuff going on, same things being filmed, could have worked just by changing camera angles. The post you're referring to supports his points because in that post Ferrinus was arguing that the scantily clad woman should have been obscured.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Comprehensive list of important women's issues, as compiled by internet dudes: Hey look, another dishonest poo poo post that tries to disparage people defending the scene. Crappy Jack posted:Our point of view in that shot is right next to Kirk. Like, the camera's standing maybe three feet to his left. It is quite literally a male's gaze. We are seeing what Kirk is seeing, and the character is reacting to Kirk looking at her. I mean, I guess we're not like watching a Being John Malkovich inspired view through his literal eyes and hearing his thought process, sure, but the camera is straight up from Kirk's vantage. If our point of view is not Kirk's but just right next to Kirk's, then it's not his gaze and not "quite literally a male's gaze." E: To be clear, I'm not arguing that it isn't necessarily male gaze, just that this particular explanation doesn't make sense. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:My heart bleeds for the guys who temporarily transform into champions against sexism if and only if their boners are tangentially involved. Stop projecting the shame you felt at your own erection upon others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Yeah, that's how it works. Everyone in the audience for this film got a boner, but only a few brave souls have the courage to revel in it (or, alternately, explain it away as a satirical boner). You seem certain that the film gave people erections. How come? And why does that upset you so much?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:A moment ago you seemed certain that the film gave me an erection, so maybe you could answer your own first question. Are you really this dense? quote:And yet her sexual perspective is the earliest stand-out development she is given This isn't true. The film focuses on how insulted she feels when Spock questions her purpose and importance. And pardon me for taking care with my language choice. I figured with your penchant for misreading and misrepresenting the points of others it would be helpful. E: I get it, you're having fun arguing and being contrarian, and that's cool. It's a lot of fun. But you got to put some actual effort into it. You're pulling the same sort of disingenuous horseshit you pulled on the last page when you were trying to argue that the scene had no point. After some prodding, you came to a decent point--that the film tried to justify a scene of male gaze by covering it in a veneer of criticism of male gaze. That's an interesting point, and one I only disagree with in terms of intention, but instead of trying to argue for that point, all you've done is insinuate that the people who disagree with you are being dishonest. And doing that eventually makes you seem dishonest. Which is how I now perceive you. Which is why I've been responding to your boner jokes with more boner jokes. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Okay, I remember her being flummoxed and speechless, but I guess I am conflating multiple scenes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Dude, I really don't want to her a peep from you about who lacks or possesses nuance when earlier you conflated criticisms of the scene with prudery. You conflated defense of the scene with erections.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I'm sorry, when I posted that I must have been thinking of some other thread where titillation in films was compared to spice on food. So now you're conflating arguments that you previously acknowledged were contradictory?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I would link Kirk's perspective to that of the audience See, I don't think the film does a great job of this. I never felt linked with Kirk in that scene. I maintained the part of detached observing third party. I think that's the root problem with the scene. If it did connect me with Kirk, it might have actually made me feel a sense of shame as I withered under Marcus's indifference to my gaze. But as it stands, I just saw noted horndog Kirk suffer some deserved comeuppance while I chomped popcorn and got to see everything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The actual emotional reaction of the audience doesn't matter here because we're talking about the scene, not the audience watching the scene. You can't separate the meaning, significance or lack thereof of the scene from the audience's emotional reaction. The scene isn't some pure artifact; it exists as something whose very existence is predicated on an audience seeing it and reacting to it. Indeed, your very disapproval of the scene is rooted in your emotional reaction to it. You are inclined to disapprove of the seemingly exploitative exhibition of a woman in a state of undress, so you are upset by the scene, and I mean upset in the broadest sense. I don't know if you are angered, bothered, irritated, or just mildly annoyed by it, but however it makes you feel, that feeling is your emotional response to the scene and leads to your judgment of the scene. This goes back to what I was trying to get at in my last post, that the scene is fundamentally flawed, and that's what's driving this argument. The scene fails to establish the emotional connection that supports its point--Alice Eve/Carol Marcus doesn't give two shits about your male gaze. Defenders of the scene see the attempt to make that point reason enough to include the scene. Detractors see the failure to hammer home that point reason enough to cut the scene. Essentially, it's a rhetorical problem. Everyone can see the logos of the scene--Carol is at best slightly annoyed by Kirk's ogling, but the scene is framed and presented in such a way that it fails to connect the audience with Kirk and achieve the proper pathos to get the audience to really give a poo poo. So it comes down to ethos: if you are willing to give a mainstream blockbuster credit for trying to comment on male gaze, you're inclined to give the scene a pass; but if you see it as just a continuation of a detestable trend in mainstream blockbusters, you're going to be upset (again, in the most general sense of the term).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:With the reveal that co-writer Bob Orci had a Twitter full of Truther bullshit that he deleted, I like the take that Star Trek Into Darkness is a muddled, poorly-realized Truther conspiracy movie. The first paragraph of that article is "unrelated 'plot holes' prove this film lacked a coherent theme," which is ridiculous on its face. For all the problems you may perceive regarding plotting, style, and ripping off/honoring previous Trek films, you can't honestly say this film lacked a coherent theme. It was simple and blatant and oft repeated: Starfleet (read: America) should not be a military organization.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:This was definitely not the problem, although I agree that the last film also made no sense, but in a much more entertaining and economical way. That's not a plot hole. At worst it's a plot contrivance, which is perfectly fine in a science fiction social parable. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Breaking the Prime Directive leads to Kirk losing the Enterprise to Pike which leads to Pike attending the captain's meeting where he dies which, because it causes Kirk to feel responsible for the death of his father figure, motivates Kirk to seek revenge against Khan and accept Marcus's clearly immoral mission.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Plot isn't theme. A scene can be part of a chain of literal events, while still feeling disconnected as a topic. It motivates the protagonists' involvement in the film's central conflict and provides a counterpoint to the mission to kill/capture Khan. It is what Kirk and crew should be doing instead of working as assassins/invaders. That you feel a disconnect between it and the later action is precisely the point. Hbomberguy posted:Yes, I know that's what happens. But surely, having broken the prime directive and having the prime directive and the reason why it exists established in the story, someone would then maybe learn something from the experience? But the rest of the film is Kirk continuing to be an rear end in a top hat to everyone and take the obviously morally-outrageous mission rather than, say, learning from his mistakes. You know, like Captain Kirk might have done in this show called Star Trek. Kirk learns from his mistakes, though. Not immediately, but people rarely do. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:At what point in this film does Kirk learn the point of non-interference or ever stop doing whatever he wants to do all the time? Is it the ending speech where he talks about people not always being swayed by their personal desires, right after doing whatever he wanted and then coming back to life because gently caress consequences? Ahh, the problem is you are looking for Kirk to learn a different lesson. The Prime Directive is bullshit as demonstrated by it being the thing that would have damned a civilization to destruction. Kirk learns the lesson that he isn't invincible and he can't save everyone, that there are real consequences to his action. He learns this by dying. Coming back to life doesn't negate this lesson, it gives Kirk an opportunity to make use of it. I don't know where in Khan it says what you say it says about the Kobayashi Maru. I love that film, watch it regularly, and can only remember that it established that he cheated, like he does in 09. But it's good for you to bring it up. Kirk didn't learn its lesson in 09, but he does learn it in ITD. Which is why at the end, he is finally ready to be the TOS Kirk and lead the five year mission. E: had to fix the atrocious WC error. Haha PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:What sense does it make to learn you're not invincible by discovering a way of coming back to life with magic healing blood? Surely the lesson this Kirk would learn from all this is that you CAN save everyone, because not only did boldly rushing in with total disregard for the central tenets of the organisation he represents NOT get him court-martialled but he ended up stopping the bad guy and saving the primitive civilisation which for him counts as a win, and on top of that he survived getting killed in the process so there's no punishment for doing it all over again. This completely fits with Kirk's rejection of the concept of the no-win situation, but in the most stupid and non star-trek way possible because Starfleet turns out to be so corrupt they're not worth listening to and you are immune to the consequences of your own heroic sacrifice. It makes sense because he dies. He willingly sacrifices himself and faces the pain of death, something that the film establishes as so utterly terrible it shocks Spock of all people. That's punishment in itself. He is anointed by the magic blood and gets to come back from that; he is given the opportunity to make use of that lesson. Spock's death isn't so much different. It too serves as a lesson for Kirk. The only difference is that Spock gets an entire movie dedicated to his resurrection. Star Fleet doesn't turn out so corrupt that they aren't worth listening to. Marcus is a rogue operator. "Breaking the rules is bad" or "breaking the rules is good" is never the message. It wasn't wrong for Kirk to save the aliens. It was wrong for Kirk to go on a rogue assassination mission. His crew shows him this. He learns this lesson. And instead, he decides to arrest Khan and bring him back to face the rule of law.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Also, while I hate taking events in movies literally and breaking down their logic, it just feels sort of like nit-picking, but the scene where Bones injects a Tribble with Khan's blood and then later the Tribble comes back to life is so loving stupid on so many levels that it's really hard not to. Is Khan's blood so special that it works on non-human creatures? Do Tribbles have human blood? Why would Bones assume based on it healing a problem with a Tribble that it would also cure radiation poisoning? In humans?! Arghhhhh We test poo poo on lab animals all the time. Think of the tribble like some doofy space lab rat. Why not try the blood's seemingly miraculous powers on Kirk? Your best friend is lying dead before you. You have something that just might bring him back. Why would you not try it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Yeah, if you didn't see the Passion as much of a sacrifice, Kirk's death won't seem like much of one either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I don't read the Bible for the plot. I interpret the Passion metaphorically, the point being that sacrifice is an important part of the betterment of humanity and sometimes in order to change things for the better people have to accept death to prove a point. If someone asked you to choose between a hundred people dying and a thousand people dying, with the caveat that if you die before the decision time is up no-one else has to, only a couple of people would have the resilience to throw themselves off a building to save everyone else, but those people are perhaps our best and brightest, and most kind. Socrates. You are talking about Socrates, who may have been an invention of Plato's. (I don't think he was, but I don't think Christ was an invention either.) And you miss my point about the Passion. It was a sacrifice. Christ suffered immensely. Whether his resurrection is divine action, a metaphor, or just plain bad writing (huh?), it doesn't change the fact that he suffered and sacrificed. You also draw what I feel is a pointless and artificial distinction, something that seems at odds with your metaphorical reading of the Bible. It doesn't matter that Christ and Socrates may or may not have been real and Kirk definitely isn't. We're talking about stories about them, and whether those stories are significant works of philosophy and theology or just some dumb summer blockbuster, those stories have points, and we can talk about how they make those points. And Pine and Quinto deliver the hell out of their lines in that scene, and I think it has as much or more pathos than the scene from Khan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I find this unconvincing. The Passion happens in a completely different context - we have specific expectations regarding what happens in Hollywood movies with multi-million dollar contracts in general, and those that happen to be reboots full of call-backs to a previous iteration in particular. You find it unconvincing because it was a joke that you are taking too seriously.  I was just goofing on the poster I quoted, not trying to make a serious connection between Kirk and Christ. That's the film's and SMG's job.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Ah, my bad. I drew a distinction between the Bible and Star Trek Into Darkness because they exist in my mind to serve different purposes. The entire point of my post was the complete opposite of the distinction you think I drew, though. I wasn't calling Jesus a faker or Socrates real or whatever, my point was that whether Socrates was real or not, his message was strengthened by the fact he died for it. I of course don't know for sure whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not, but given we have a strong lack of people coming back to life, a character coming back to life is surely to be interpreted symbolically. Sure you can take the return as literal truth, but then all you have is a guy who died and then came back because he was the immortal son of god all along, which is a pretty piss-poor plot resolution imho. Broadly speaking, the Bible and STID exist for the same reason: to tell a narrative with a point. I certainly consider them of different magnitude and significance, but we can talk about them as stories. You are doing just that when you call the Resurrection a "pretty piss-poor plot resolution". I think this is really drifting from the point, so I'll just point out that Christ's message was certainly strengthened by his death. That's kind of the whole point of martyrdom. Anyway, I think you're being unfair and too cynical in your assessment of why Kirk dies and comes back. Yes, it is certainly there because the remake you're watching is riffing on what it's remaking. It is, after all, a remake. But it's also there to develop the character into who we all think he should be and serve the film's broader themes regarding militarization and the damage it causes. Sir Kodiak posted:What does it try to build on it? An allegory about the militarization of America in response to the threat of terror.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Starfleet militarizes in ST:ID in response to, depending on whether you're talking about internal motivations or the public show, a looming threat from a foreign state (the Klingons) or in reaction to a domestic terrorist (Khan). The United States militarized in response to external non-state actors: drug cartels and religious/cultural extremists. It's a very sloppy allegory and not a particularly interesting one. You're right of course. There's no American parallel to using a terrorist attack by non state actors to justify starting a war with a tangentially related nation. The last decade never happened.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 18:55
|
|