Star Trek: Round Spaceships

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Trek: Round Spaceships

«‹›3 »

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Sir Kodiak posted:

I thought the allegory was about "the militarization of America in response to the threat of terror." The militarization of the United States wasn't in response to the Iraq War and the Iraq War is mostly limited to being related to that in being a training ground for military-style police once they come home, in direct contrast to the drone-like Vengeance. But perhaps I'm just confused. Can you clarify what you mean when you say that the United States was "militarized"?

Fair enough; my phrasing was rather broad. I mean the broad-reaching militarization of American culture and hegemony following 9/11. The Iraq War is the direct parallel to the Klingon War Admiral Marcus desires. The drone imagery and parallels to the raid to kill OBL exist to delimit the criticism, so that it is not just about Bush and Iraq, but about the continued War on Terror.

The parallels don't have to be exact. It's an extended metaphor, and the point is that adopting a militaristic response to the tragedy flies in the face of the ideals that America/Starfleet professes to hold so dear and only serves to cause more tragedies like the one in the film's climax that is nearly literally the "9/11 times 1000" threatened in Team America.

Maarak posted:

I haven't seen it since theaters, but isn't most of the intel the Weller gives Kirk wrong or deeply flawed? Like the ruined province of Kronos not being abandoned at all.

That's pretty much the extent of the intel Marcus gives him, and it's tough to tell if it's wrong or not. They attract the attention of Klingon patrol ships, which would seem to indicate the region is inhabited, but on the other hand, we don't see any other signs of habitation.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2013 21:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 00:16

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Sir Kodiak posted:

This may extend farther into political debate than necessary, but I didn't really see 9/11 as causing significant militarization in regards to our external use of force. The state surveillance and internal-security apparatuses got a real shot in the arm, but American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't particularly more indicative of a militarized nation, as far as I can tell, than American involvement in Vietnam or Korea. It's just the sort of poo poo we do.

I'm not suggesting that none of the parallels are there. That would be insane. But I don't think it holds up enough to actually serve as an allegory for post-9/11 America. For it to be emotionally satisfying (to me) to see the America-analogue turn away from that path, I think the path would have to be more analogous. At which point I'm left with a movie that I didn't find as fun, exciting, or visually striking as the previous one.

Where this still sort of works for me is that the movie is, in part, reacting to the fact that the Federation was always less humanitarian and more imperialistic than it was willing to admit - particularly when viewed from the perspective that the other movies and TV shows all occurred before this one in reality, even if not in the in-universe chronology. But that strikes me as being more relevant to America having gone the wrong way during the Cold War, with our modern state the ugly outgrowth of that paranoid mentality, than 9/11 being a breaking point. Which actually fits in pretty nicely with the time-travel narrative and the Klingons historically being analogous to the Soviets. I might have to watch it again from that perspective to see if it holds up, since I'd assumed it was a more conventional 9/11 reaction movie the first time through, which I found to be an unsatisfying reading for reasons explained here.

Fair enough. I do see a shift that occurred post-9/11. We've been a meddlesome and militarized nation ever since becoming a real world power, but we at least played lip-service to consensus before the Bush administration. Since then, we've been much more happy to unilaterally exercise force.

You're correct to see that Starfleet never really lived up to its professed ideals. That's all over the movie, and I think it's part of the larger parallel being made between Starfleet and America. I don't think that at all contradicts or undermines the indictment of 21st Century America. Fundamentally it all comes back to Scotty's point: we are meant to be explorers, not soldiers.

JediTalentAgent posted:

I could maybe accept the Klingon part of the story if the movie made slightly more emphasis on the Klingons being a threat. Other than being told the Klingons are up to no good, having something in the film show some examples that supported the Marcus agenda and that we were already at an active antagonistic state with them could have been useful in giving the characters added justification in being willing to launch missiles at their homeworld.

The whole Klingon subplot feels like a speedbump.

The whole point is that the characters aren't justified in being willing to launch missiles at the Klingon homeworld. Marcus is a villain who misleads Kirk.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2013 21:56

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Hbomberguy posted:

That part was a joke.

I figured, but it still served my point.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 14:15

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Cingulate posted:

But have they? I don't think I'm a Trekkie, but I loved WoK, which was the submarine-iest of ST movies (together with I guess parts of VI). But both new movies are about as submariney as WoK really. Yes, they tried to give the ship more size, but fundamentally, it looks MORE claustrophobic than it did in WoK, most of which is on the living room - style bridge.

I think he means that in the sense of the slow battle sequences that are all about maneuvering one ship to get an advantage over the other. The space battles in the JJ movies have been much more frenetic and less 'tactical'.

As for the torpedoes, the cryo tubes replaced the fuel cells.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 14:53

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Tubgirl Cosplay posted:

the military aesthetic and structure inherited from old Trek.

There doesn't actually seem to be much military in their aesthetic or structure. Their uniforms make them look more like athletes than naval officers, and the command structure seems incredibly fluid for a military organization. Abrams' Trek has really stepped back from the naval themes of the TOS films after TMP.

"Bristling with banks of phasers and torpedoes" isn't a very good description either. It's difficult to see just how many weapons are on the Enterprise, and none of them stick out like, you know, bristles.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 17:52

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Helsing posted:

That's actually another of my big complaints. There's no attempt to actually portray the future in these movies. On the rare occasions when we actually see what regular Federation society looks like the film's creators have gone out of their way to make it as familiar and banal as possible. It really just reinforces the fact that this movie is Mission Impossible in space rather than being an actual science fiction film about futuristic technologies or societies.

These movies aren't actually about the future. Part of the point is for the audience to be able to relate to the society in the film because that society represents our society. It's fair to want a science fiction movie to depict the future and be let down when it doesn't, but that doesn't make it a bad film, and that doesn't mean the filmmaker doesn't respect the audience. It just means the filmmaker had a different purpose in mind.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 18:06

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Tubgirl Cosplay posted:

Well we know they've got at least seventy-something high-yield missiles on board, replacing its apparently similar but lower-tech normal armament. That's rather significantly more than the real-world standard noncombatant vehicle loadout of "none". Buncha big lasers and stuff too. For all the time the movie spends on discussing how nonaggressive and unprepared for warfare the Federation is, characters inevitably seem to have guns right on hand any time there's anything they may wish to shoot at, which is often. Their command structure may be movie-fluid and kindly to the renegade captain who bucks all the rules, but it's still a uniformed force with explicitly military-derived ranks and language and structure. I'm not sure what your basis of comparison is if you don't find the Federation militaristic, they're more visibly so than some actual first-world armies in peacetime.

Picture if, like, the Space Shuttle or any Arctic exploration boat had a battery of missiles capable of taking out a city as a matter of course. If every expedition into the Amazon had a full complement of small arms and a battleship for fire support. Picture if actual geologists and diplomats and poo poo were marching around in uniform with ranks like "Admiral". Would this be a society you'd say is more peaceful than the one you live in? Would you say they need outside help in relearning how to wage war?

The movie doesn't really seem to know how to make them visibly more aggressive than the normal Federation baseline either, which is why its whole anti-warmongering theme falls apart into absurd hairsplitting like Scotty freaking out because the new torpedos are dangerous and made for killing, unlike the good old peace torpedos, dammit we're not a warship we're a science vessel! it is a gun control analogy

My point regarding your description is that "bristling" is inappropriate not because the Enterprise doesn't pack an arsenal, but that arsenal is hidden and difficult to identify. Really, this supports your point further-- the Enterprise hides its arsenal away behind a peaceful facade.

And many expeditions, not just those planned for imperialistic ends, carry small arms along. They're useful for fending off much more than just indignant indigenous peoples.

As I said before, I think the JJ films take a big step back from the overt militarism of the TOS films past 1. As for the officer titles, what other titles would a fleet use? Commercial and scientific vessels still have captains, a military title. Why not call the leader of an exploratory fleet an admiral? The leader of our postal service is a loving general.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 22:05

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Hbomberguy posted:

Khan took out a bunch of Starfleet officials and then jumped across the Universe to Klingon space. In a traceable way that you could show to anyone.

People keep forgetting this: it wasn't a traceable method you could just show anyone. Kirk showed the transwarp module to Scotty, who was able to decipher where Khan had went because he was its inventor.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2013 14:45

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Yeah, that seems to be the implication of Scotty's reaction to the device. He's upset that not only did they confiscate his work, but they seem to have handed it over to a super villain.

I would love for any film to basically be The Stars My Destination.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2013 21:23

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Some Guy TT posted:

True, but good Star Trek tended to be silly inconsistent and fantastical in the pursuance of interesting ideas, not action movie stuff.

Trek has always pursued both, and this film is no different. There is a clear political allegory that runs through the film and unifies its otherwise pretty ridiculous plot.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2013 01:55

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

enraged_camel posted:

Don't worry, when I watch X-Men I pretend I'm watching a fantasy movie.

You are. Superheroes are the subgenre that most clearly illustrates how vague and arbitrary is the border between science fiction and fantasy.

# ¿ Dec 26, 2013 23:27

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

mr. stefan posted:

While its true that Magic and Advanced technology serve similar narrative purposes more often than not, the main thematic difference to understand is that magic, when used, is explicitly identified as making the impossible possible, whereas advanced technology is used as a shorthand for knowledge man has not yet come to understand, and the difference, while small, comes with a fuckton of weighty implication: the former is by its nature defiance of understood consistency, while the latter implies an internal consistency to exist, however alien it may be. When magic enters into a story, the audience is conditioned to believe that magic can do anything except what it is explicitly stated to be unable of doing, such as the Genie in aladdin needing to define that he cannot bring the dead back to life, etc. Advanced technology on the other hand is expected by the audience to only be able to do what it is shown to do. When the DeLorean gains the ability to fly it's explicitly the result of modifications made in the future, and if this had not been implied people would have lost their poo poo because being able to fly has no bearing or relation to the DeLorean's primary utility of time travel. When Gandalf suddenly generates a force field that the Balrog cannot penetrate despite never displaying that capability before, nobody cares because it's Gandalf, he's a loving wizard, do you know what the limits on wizards are because I sure loving don't.

To put it in more succinct terms, Sci Fi runs on the justification of "this is impossible by our understanding, but we don't understand everything, do we?" while fantasy runs on the justification of "This is impossible, but magic doesn't give a gently caress." The difference is effectively an illusion, yes, something with no practical bearing on the events and themes of a story unless directly addressed, but the smallest things often make the biggest difference.

This is a BS distinction. There are plenty of scifi settings where technology does whatever needs to be done and plenty of fantasy settings where magic follows very strict sets of rules.

And we've been throwing fireballs for ages. They're called bombs.

# ¿ Dec 27, 2013 00:48

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Helsing posted:

I say that the movie is poorly scripted because it repeatedly has the characters performing actions that don't make any sense within the context of the fictional universe. Based on what has been established just within the Into Darkness movie it makes no sense that Scotty would be able to sneak his transport shuttle into the cargo bay of a top secret military ship. Likewise when, early in the movie, we're told that firing missiles at the Klingon home world might cause a war, only to later have this plot point entirely ignored despite the Enterprise crew killing numerous Klingon's on their own home world, that is an example of poor scripting.

Similarly when Khan has all these bizarre and abilities like being able to design the perfect star ship, the perfect missile, and when his blood can magically heal any organism of any disease including radiation poisoning, this really comes off as a lazy decision by script writers who didn't really care about making a plot driven movie. They just wanted to make it as easy and convenient as possible to jump from one action sequence to the next.

Ok but there's a basic rule in storytelling called "Chekov's gun". When you make a big point out of the fact that action X (violating Klingon territorial sovereignty) will lead to consequence Y (a war) then its really lame to have the characters perform action X only to have... nothing happen. I'm not saying that it had to be a war, it could have been some totally unpredictable end result, but it should have been addressed. The failure to deal with that plot point after it had been raised early in the film is why I would say this film was poorly scripted. I think people who enjoyed the movie are simply willing to overlook the bad scripting because they enjoyed the acting, the action sequences or other elements of the work.

When Star Trek establishes that the Federation represents the pinnacle of man's technological advancement and then violates that by having a dude from the pre-Warp era inventing ships that are not only comparable but in fact vastly superior in every way to the Federation's star ships then that destroys any internal consistency or suspension of disbelief that the movie franchise had. When its established that a ship is super technologically advanced and is a highly guarded secret, only to have a character sneak on board in the most blatant and ridiculous way possible, then that destroys the internal consistency and coherence of the movie.

I think you mischaracterize a lot of the aspects of the film here to bolster your point. First off, a relatively small scale firefight against an unknown foe is very different than a known enemy raining six dozen missiles down on you. Note though that the Klingon's reaction to a small unknown trade vessel showing up unannounced does actually reinforce the idea that they'd react violently to any invasion of their soveriegnty. I agree that we should see further reaction from the Klingons, but considering the breakneck pace of this movie and the fact that it is part of an ongoing franchise, I am fine with that thread being left dangling for another film.

Your descriptions of Khan's torpedoes and ship being perfect don't follow from the film. The torpedoes are tampered with and don't even work as intended, hardly perfect weapons. Vengeance's apparent strength, its tiny crew, becomes its greatest weakness when three men are able to capture it, and a madman is able to control it by himself.

And nowhere is Starfleet established as the pinnacle of human achievement. In fact, based on the continuity this film and its prequel invoke, humanity has a ways to go. This is reinforced by the structural flaws within Starfleet that this film points to.

And again, this film is a geopolitical allegory. It looks at the War on Terror, not the Cold War, and it takes short cuts to keep that allegory in focus, but there is a great deal more to it than just a mad rush from one action sequence to the next.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2013 23:25

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

enraged_camel posted:

Is it not explained that the torpedoes have stealth technology and would therefore not be detected by the Klingons? So to them it would look like random explosions that happened in the uninhabited region of their planet.

Doesn't this explanation come from Marcus? He wants a war with the Klingons, so we shouldn't trust what he says about the torpedoes' stealth capability.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2013 22:57

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Agreed. Abrams has no idea how to properly slow pan across a model for a ten minute long eye candy shot. :rolleyes:

# ¿ Jan 24, 2014 20:58

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

No Wave posted:

Are you talking about Alice Eve or a spaceship?

Haha. Both.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2014 22:08

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

AlternateAccount posted:

Uhh, that shot/sequence is amazing.

I also think it could be said pretty irrefutably that Robert Wise is a Better Director than Abrams.

I love that shot and the one of Spock floating towards Vger and the rest of that movie. I was making a joke in response to a content free poo poo post. I don't see how just watching a film with very different style, plot, and theme can prove Abrams is a poo poo director.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2014 04:55

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

penismightier posted:

It makes sense in the first one in which, on a ship of teenagers and fratty bros like my boy Kirk, Spock's sort of a calm, confident, poised center to it all. He's got issues but he's basically a good guy trying. It frays in the second when he gets extra emotionally stunted and turns into a big dumb dickhead baby.

Spock is emotionally stunted. One of the nicer points of Abrams' films is that that they show how being raised Vulcan has done a total number on Spock. He has spent his entire life repressing his emotions and has never learned how to express them. He's basically a sociopath. That's what makes the "Khaaan!" scream work. It is the proper emotional response as it plays out perfectly the inversion of the original scene and shows that Spock is learning from the guy who is trying to teach him how to be human.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2014 02:46

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

penismightier posted:

I get that on paper and I think it works well as a concept, but the execution didn't figure out how to balance that petulance with the story. It made him less interesting instead of working as a captivating character flaw like in the first film. I was annoyed whenever Spock came on screen because I knew it'd be a grind.

Fair enough. I felt it worked well and Quinto played the character as physically tortured by his own warped psyche.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2014 22:25

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Some Guy TT posted:

I can't help but wonder what any of that is supposed to mean to someone who has no idea what Vulcans are. Do the (new) movies ever actually address that? I remember one scene from the first one where little Spock freaks out at the principal's office or something, but if I didn't already know the Star Trek mythos that scene would have just said "Spock has anger issues". Not exactly the kind of deep characterization worth hanging multiple climaxes on.

He has multiple scenes across both films where he talks about or hears about what it is to be Vulcan. You don't need to already know that. The film tells you.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2014 02:20

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

I think the movie "earns" the Kirk death. A major theme of the two JJTreks is Spock learning how to be human from Kirk, so Spock mimicking Kirk's reaction in the inverse call-back is a perfect demonstration of his education--he literally does exactly what his "teacher" has done in that exact situation. Additionally, Pine and Quinto are fantastic in that scene. They provide such deep pathos that their version easily holds its own against the original.

# ¿ May 24, 2014 05:23

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Let's put these women in incredibly short skirts that they must constantly adjust because that would be a practical clothing choice for exploring the universe.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 23:09

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

We really can't make a claim about JJ Trek's treatment of Vulcans as a whole because we've only spent a significant amount of time with one Vulcan who is a special Vulcan because he is not wholly Vulcan.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 20:01

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

That's kids bullying Spock for being different. We then see Spock awarded their highest honor explicitly in spite of that difference. It's pretty much a wash as far as being assholes goes. Though it does show us where Spock's lack of tact comes from.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 02:33

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

computer parts posted:

The awarders do have that rear end in a top hat "you did good...despite having the genes of an inferior species " thing going on.

That's the tactless thing I was talking about. They think they are complimenting him. And this is behavior towards a unique individual, not representative of their regular behavior.

Basically, people are extrapolating a lot from the behavior of and directed towards one Vulcan who isn't really a Vulcan.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 23:53

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

lizardman posted:

Haha, I kept stopping myself telling people they're "fictional species-ist" but yeah that would be a pretty horrible attitude to take toward a real biracial person.

It would be. But this is a fake bi-species person who is defined by being an outsider to each species.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2014 06:26

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

DrNutt posted:

For starters, only drooling retards care about authorial intent where it concerns criticism.

Nah, many great critics consider(ed) intent to be of at least some significance. Booth felt it was an important component in examining a work's ethic. Even Barthes softened his stance against it.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 05:58

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Lord Krangdar posted:

The point of de-emphasizing authorial intent is to put the focus on interpreting the contents of the films, which is something we can know and discuss, rather than intentions which we can't know, therefore can't really discuss, and which don't really exist in the simplistic ways they're spoken about anyway.

Yes, and note the key word term here is "de-emphasizing," not "ignoring." An interpretation should be rooted in the work, not your belief about the creators' intent. There's nothing wrong with allowing your perception of creator intent to color the lense through which you interpret the details. That's a natural human reaction to any perceived act of communication. The problem arises when you use perceived intent to refute a different reading. Even if the creators didn't intend the effect it had on that person, their work still created that effect. It doesn't ultimately matter to SMG whether or not JJ intended his Treks to refute 90s Trek. He saw a refutation of 90s Trek.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2014 05:27

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

WarLocke posted:

Exactly. That doesn't mean it actually was a refutation of 90s Trek. Just that SMG interpreted it in that way.

Well no, it "actually" was as far as SMG and anyone who agrees with him saw it. You don't have to take it that way, but you can't discount its validity unless you can demonstrate that the details of the film itself discount its validity.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2014 05:49

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

WarLocke posted:

Yes, that's what I said. It's his interpretation.

Yes, but you said it as though it wasn't valid, it wasn't what the film "actually" said. But the film doesn't actually say anything. It's just a (painstakingly crafted) digital record of acting and CGI. It's a signal that has yet to be received. And it says nothing until it is decoded by a conscious being.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2014 05:59

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

WarLocke posted:

It's basically a rephrasing of CineD's hate-on for 'authorial intent'. 'Authorial intent doesn't matter' comes up all the time in here.

My point wasn't that the movie in and of itself says one specific thing and interpreting it (otherwise or at all) was wrong, my point is that interpretations themselves aren't 'what this movie actually said', they are what that poster THINKS the movie said. Whereas often people will post and say 'this is what MOVIE X means' and what they should be saying is 'this is what I think MOVIE X means'.

The "I think" part is implicit. You don't need to constantly remind people that your interpretation is subjective when the very foundation of your critical model is the subjectivity of interpretation.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2014 21:57

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Lord Krangdar posted:

Everything about film interpetation is inherently subjective. If one could view a film subjectively somehow it would be only a meaningless series of lights and sound waves.

Yes, this is that very foundation I spoke of.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2014 23:39

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Yeah, but he's Doctor Moriarty. You don't even need to call Spock to know he is bad news. :v:

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 23:06

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

NarkyBark posted:

Roberto Orci has stepped down from directing ST3.

Apparently Jonathan Frakes is now pushing to get the job, waiting for response from Paramount.

"I'm all over it. I would love that job. I'm trying to keep the lid on how excited I am about the possibility, knowing it's such a long shot. But there's nothing I would like better."

I'm totally on board, as long as the director's chair is low enough for him to do that weird straddle thing.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2014 20:41

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Tell Sisko and the Bajorians that religion is dead. :colbert:

And actually, one of the things I enjoyed about ENT was its optimism regarding humanity. I liked that it was our desire for peace and unity that forged the Federation. I liked that it said we had something to offer to these aliens who were more advanced than us mentally, physically, and intellectually. It seemed to reembrace Roddenberry's vision in that regard.

# ¿ May 6, 2015 20:54

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Snak posted:

Okay, that's fair, but it only matters because they time-traveled back to the 20th century where people cared that he was Russian.

There's a running gag where Chekhov will make some boastful claim about Russia or Russians and the rest of the bridge crew will roll their eyes and condescend him. It's never a major plot point, but it is kinda what you correctly say should be avoided with a Muslim character.

# ¿ May 7, 2015 05:27

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

WarLocke posted:

"You have to read Shakespeare in the original Klingon"

Yeah, that's also a regular bit, but with Chekhov it's a little different. He isn't making the joke, he's the butt of the joke.

# ¿ May 7, 2015 05:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 00:16

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

TMP is rad. It's a long TOS episode with really great effects. So they show off the model. You'd want to show that model off too. :colbert:

# ¿ May 8, 2015 01:08

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Trek: Round Spaceships

«‹›3 »