|
The excuse that studios 'can't find non-white actors' or whatever is just such complete bullshit and making that excuse is almost more offensive than not even trying.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Nerd rage is when someone says "Khan isn't supposed to be white because of CANON". To take this a bit further, its very frustrating how nerd rage is most often specifically directed at casting non-white actors as characters who were portrayed as white or even characters with no discernible racial characteristic (hell, even when fans just falsely presume such as with Hunger Games). This doesn't happen at all in the reverse, or when it does happen people make excuses similar to what have been made in this very thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
The notion of being "color blind" as an ideal solution is so outrageously misguided that I can't believe it's actually still seriously suggested by anyone who's not a political pundit or myopic liberal. If the pool of actors already favors white participants then how in the world will being colorblind actually do anything to work towards equality in the industry and in media representation?
Danger fucked around with this message at 17:08 on May 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Darko posted:Ideal and solution (+ good/purposeful which added even more completely missing ideas) are two completely different words. Ok, fixed. No reason to change up the language you used.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
'Trek nerds' were absolutely the intended audience of Star Trek '09. It pretty much directly commented on the 'fandoms' relationship to franchise and film.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Without even having to go into the spoilers, if you were thinking this movie would be smart or creative or reflect any of the deeper narratives of the show, well then, you were bound to be disappointed b/c it's not about that, it's action shlock you idiots. Trek '09 was smart AND creative and purposefully focused on the relationship between 'franchise' and viewer, and how narratives and meaning emerge. That synopsis sounds like it's a natural continuation of that theme and will most likely rule, I bet. Though it's still pretty lovely that they took a character portrayed iconic-ally by a non-white actor and filled the role with a white internet fan sensation. Especially since the dialogue seemed to go "Khan is white now, that's loving dumb" "No he's not Khan, don't worry". Danger fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
-Monkeys have a bone fight -Spaceships engage in 15 minutes of foreplay, just get to boning already -Guy runs around in upside down circles -The robot goes crazy, but then the guy removes all of the cassette tapes and he turns off -There's an old guy in a room for a while, then he's a baby
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Trek 09 is a good movie. I enjoy it very much. That being said, it has a LOT of problems storywise. I will cite a few of them briefly (and try to stay out of super-picky nerd territory, and just in the bad writing zone), as an example: Why does Nero drill into the surface to drop the red stuff rather than just throw it at the planet? Kirk getting dropped on ice moon, where Spock Prime just so happens to be, then some cosmic nonsense about fate. Pike gives command of I know you say you tried to avoid it, but a lot of that is the definition of 'super-picky nerd territory'. The drill is an act of deliberate penetration, just throwing the red stuff wouldn't do at all. Nu-Kirk gets dropped on a barren, violently inhospitable environment and finds it the home of the ancient icon of Trek canon dying alone and forgotten. Nu-Kirk, completely ignorant of the "Real Star Trek" history takes the helm against the embittered villain who has ruthlessly taken out his ire related to Trek canon on these new upstarts. It's all great. Plus the characters, their motivations, the dialogue, the visuals, and all those things that you find good ARE the story. Plot holes and "bad writing" are fundamental elements of a movie's story as well and shouldn't be hand waved. Also Prometheus is one of last year's best films, if not the best sci-fi genre film in the last 20. Get your poo poo straight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:There is so much I don't know if NERDS is really the specific enough type of audience being referenced, but it certainly calls up the image I think people are getting at: those who fail to read or engage with film as a work of art in the interest of maintaining some virtual True form of their franchise. Maybe 'Trekies' is better, as it really is the specific audience that Trek '09 is commenting on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 19:24
|
|
"God I love pissing off NERDS"
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:I don't think that's what anyone in this discussion is getting at. The complaints rallied against Trek 09 and the "bullet points" from the new film aren't about things like "Kirk wouldn't do X" or "The Federation isn't Y" - they're more direct complaints against exactly what you're defending. I think it's a mix of both, in that there certainly are many criticisms consisting entirely of "This isn't Star Trek" but also of the type "This scenario or decision doesn't make tactical sense", as if the expectation is that the film depicts some virtual simulation of a real event; both completely missing that what IS depicted is entirely symbolic. So while I guess its valid to air criticisms on the tactical realism (to bring up a probably vague and overused term) of the thing it just isn't at all compelling or meaningful. I disagree that the plot doesn't make sense, but even if it didn't make a lick of sense that wouldn't at all invalidate the story. What plot holes and inconsistencies represent, or at least how they are represented and appear, tend to hold some of the most significant meanings. At the very least, dismissing things as plot holes or inconsistencies is a way of avoiding an actual examination of what the film is representing. You saw this maybe more with Prometheus, but I'm sure there was a lot of it pinned on Trek '09 as well. Star Trek '09 was both visually and narratively consistent and intelligent. edit: And to be clear, I'm not calling you or other people pedantic; I'm saying that those arguments and ways of reading and discussing film are. I'm also not trying to qualify my opinion, it qualifies on it's own. edit2: vvvvvvv Yea like that, thanks for the example. Like, could it be anything other than metaphor? Danger fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:There's a difference between in-universe fiction that's internally consistent and doesn't create more problems than it solves and this mess. FTL travel and time travel are fiction, but not completely implausible based on current science and at the very least are mostly used in a way consistent with that. On the level of implausibility, or at least the acceptable level, is magic teleportation higher or lower? What if its teleportation via wizard vs. via lensflare? What about time traveling whales? When and where did star trek jump the plausibility shark? Anyways, it's a pretty darn silly distinction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
What does it take for an element of fiction to become plausible "enough" or "internally consistent" or whatever that all even means? An entry in the official star trek wiki?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
That's unfair, as 'standard' would imply some sort of consistent baseline or that the entire criticism is at all meaningful in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Does simply putting an implausible and inexplicable event earlier on in your runtime suddenly validate it for all following instances? Why does it, of all other thematic and symbolic elements in the work, need some extra validation? It's validation in the work is intrinsic to its visual representation. Star Trek isn't a historical retelling or documentary. Plus, yea, it's pretty silly to be harping on bullet points from a blog post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:It's sometimes better to not explain how something happens and attribute it to forces not entirely within the comprehension of the characters than to base it in something that can't be made to make sense. Hah, this is like the exact opposite pedantic criticism that Abrams/Lindelof usually get and in both cases it's apart of a false dichotomy. It's the black goo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:If it's any longer than about five minutes I for one will march right out of the theater and demand a refund. A pack of people walked out of Breaking Dawn pt 2 at the end when all the heads started flying. That movie ruled.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Well I guess that spoiler does kill a lot of excitement for me as a Trek fan. Spoilered but it's the same thing everyone else is talking about : I don't think the 2009 reboot itself necessarily lended itself to whitewashing, as film making is a creative process and doesn't need to be beholden to some universal structure. Star Trek isn't the accurate retelling of historical events. Kirk, Spock, or any of the characters could easily have been cast as non-white actors. In fact, it would have really added to the first's themes by destroying those expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
It's essentially the same as the 'Wookiepedia' complex that completely misinterprets what makes the thing compelling or iconic in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Jeez, dude. You're sure fellating this pretty hard. I stopped at "Abrams gets a lot of stick for over-using lens flare in these films, and particularly in the scenes set on the ship’s bridge there’s a lot of it. Personally I adore the effect and find it hugely appropriate. Especially in 3D the style gives light a solidity and allows us subconsciously associate beams of light with the Enterprise itself, lending the ship a sort of elemental divinity." Really? That sounds like a fairly insightful and descriptive interpretation, though? Better than "Hmm, an element of artifice that has no real place in a digital visual representation...obviously this has no meaning."
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
MaterialConceptual posted:From what I'm hearing the new film is mostly about the conflict between exploration and militarism over how technology is used. What I'm wondering is whether the writers did much to establish that the crew of the Enterprise is actually interested in exploration. The new Kirk didn't really seem so interested in any of those things in the first film, which I guess was one of the things that turned me off of it. Star Fleet is interested in exploration in the same way the British and American Empires were and are. The discrepancy between their stated intent and actual actions is a primal part of the story.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
MaterialConceptual posted:Seems like more of a Babylon 5 plot than a Star Trek one (But then the admiralty in Trek was always a bunch of bumbling fools) but I guess it could work. I might give the movie a shot. Well, I haven't seen the new movie. I was talking about the themes of Star Trek in general.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Alright. You're probably going to crucify me for this (and maybe rightly so), but I've seen First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis and that's about it. Maybe the odd episode of Next Generation here and there, but I can't remember anything specific except for an episode where Worf turns into a spider monster and one where everyone turns into children. As someone who grew up watching TNG, DS9 and have a decent familiarity with the original, I thought that your criticism was spot on. The entire premise of the show (the final frontier) is inherently colonialism wrapped in liberal humanism. This was a core part of the show since the original series, featuring such adventures as Kirk arming a native population to wage a proxy war. Trek 09' was a fantastic response to the franchise and your essay has me even more interested in the sequel.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
I never claimed it was fascist, at least not in a general sense; I don't think I have the memory to comment on individual episodes at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:OK, I can see the reasoning there, though I greatly disagree with painting DS9 with such a negative brush, and largely disagree that it's possible to do that kind of revamp with something as all-sizzle as these films are. If anything, ID is crippled by it's insistence on drawing from what came before, not actually taking the premise of Trek and doing something new and modern with it. And Section 31 is barely more than a namedrop, the version in the movie bears little relation to the one in the shows. ID is SO obsessed with re-doing Wrath of Khan in some kind of 'destiny' (or just because it's 'expected') that the plot has to jump through a poo poo-ton of hoops while ignoring the personal and character motivations that made that plot compelling in the first place. I don't understand what is "all-sizzle" or "shallow", but I think those are really meaningless ways to discuss a work of art in any medium. I assume you mean that the film is very distinct visually in some way? Feels somehow kinetic? I can only comment on Trek '09 at the moment, but the visual storytelling was a primary aspect of the story (it's a film, of course) and much of it's meaning is conveyed visually (the flares of light as halo, the overdesigned interiors, the sharp gritty design of Nero's ship...) edit: Meaningless in the sense that 'shallow" supposes that it didn't attain some required 'depth', which adheres to this really fallacious high/low art dichotomy. Danger fucked around with this message at 03:55 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Technically, yes, I mean the plot, but overall, the visual storytelling came off more as obfuscating the plot than illuminating it. There's a few bits, and this discussion has highlighted a couple I didn't catch originally, but I still feel both films rely on spectacle to prevent the audience from engaging too deeply, lest they notice how disjointed and confused the plot and characters are. quote:I think both sides of the discussion need to step back from the battle lines, as we're getting dismissive and defensive. I'll leave it at this, I enjoyed the first one well enough, and this one is a more than competently made action vehicle, but I just did not enjoy it that much, nor see many of the themes and elements of the story that seem to have grabbed many of you. I doubt repeat viewings would do much to change my mind, but I'm happy that so many people are engaged with these characters and this world now. I'm just a little disappointed that I'm not able to join you. Perhaps the problem is trying to engage with a 'world' instead of engaging with the film itself as a work of art.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
forever gold posted:That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. And at the end of the day J.J Abrams is no Terrence Malick but an exceptionally pedestrian director who is no more technically impressive than hundreds of other directors in Hollywood, so I'm not sure why this Film Comment type argument is pulled to defend him, of all directors! Films aren't plot injection devices. You are thinking of Wikipedia. Cinematography, effects, editing, production design, etc. are all part of the narrative (often more so than the plot). This is just more high/low art or steak hamburger false dichotomy bullshit. There is no reason you can't or shouldn't examine a J.J. Abrams film the same way you would a Malick film.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Transformers is visually brilliant, so good on you I guess.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Roughly 300 years. Khan was frozen in 1996, after the Eugenics Wars where he personally was absolute ruler of something like a quarter of Earth in Asia from about 1992. Is it really seen as an error that Star Trek doesn't represent the 20th century with historical accuracy?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
"This is not a [franchise] movie" always seems to precede some really well considered arguments.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I think what we've learned is that this is not the place to argue about racism in Hollywood, as it is a deeply ingrained element of filmmaking that cannot be easily summarized in a single role or casting decision. Yes, a discussion on the inherent racism in Hollywood and liberal multiculturalism as portrayed in Star Trek certainly isn't appropriate to discuss in the Star Trek movie thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Yea, I agree that it is a systemic issue, however I think it's asinine to say that "this isn't the place" for a part of that discussion.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Gosh, so tactically unreal. An that lens flair! it's almost as if its an obvious artistic embellishment to portray some visual metaphor and not an accurate depiction of a virtually consistent universe parallel to our own! jesus jabrams...
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Avynte posted:I just got back from seeing this and thought it was pretty awesome. I loved the little call backs from Section 31, Mudd, Nurse Chapel, and Sulu in the Captain's seat Could it be that some examination of the nature of humanity and it's place in the galaxy (and the ideological basis of that 'placing') is found in the "slick effects and frenetic pacing"?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
effectual posted:One callback that actually would've improved the movie (slightly) imo is the last line, just copy it from Kirk's earlier closing ones: "Second star to the right, straight on 'til morning". Isn't that more of a Peter Pan reference? In Undiscovered Country it was a pointed resistance to aging and closure, flying off into Neverland instead of being decomissioned. Danger fucked around with this message at 14:40 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Pike gave command to Spock before they even did the whole basejumping drill thing. I just rewatched '09 recently and remembered how fantastic it is.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:In Star Trek 09, how come the bad guy didn't just fly to Romulus and warn the planet, once he realized he traveled back in time? Because it happened, it's canon, he saw it happen and will not abide innaccuracy in Trek canon.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Hip-Hoptimus Rhyme posted:I honestly wasn't too much of a fan of all the references in this movie, but was fully expecting the final line to be "Second star to the right, and straight on til morning." It just felt like it should've been there. Someone said this earlier, and now that I think about it I think it could have worked as yet another inversion on expectations, declaring the intent to become lost in Never Neverland, a place of dreams (and weren't they already there? With the focus on dream physics and logic, specifically recalling Inception at one point). Undiscovered Country quoted Peter Pan as a wistful rebellion against aging and closure, it was an escape. Danger fucked around with this message at 18:33 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I think the film suffers a bit from veering close to the Iron Man series' 'bad egg' brand of anti-capitalism (i.e. blaming Admiral Marcus for widespread systemic problems) but saves itself by making 'Private Security' into the new redshirt. The USS Vengeance was evidently created in secret by private contractors, and Marcus is just a figurehead/patsy. If Khan is the 'diabolical revolutionary' (which is certainly an apt description, and comparison with Zizek's take on Bane), then the message the film gives us regarding the moral responsibility to seek a purer, cleaner capitalism is more insidious in STID. The whitewashing of Khan (and Bane) specifically inverts the expectation of the revolutionary figure as a nomadic war machine (the dangerous Other to the state), depicting instead an aspect of the liberal state that has been appropriated for its own use. In the past, Kirk would naturally assume for the villain to turn around to face the audience and of course be revealed as the foreign and dangerous Other (Khan as the Indian warlord, Bane as the Hispanic revolutionary felon) but instead finds some British dude in the same role (Batman, likewise, finds a British dude). That the identity of Khan has been appropriated by a British militant is fitting then, in this case. The danger isn't from the marauding foreign invaders, but how they have infected our good liberal state. Kirk's noble task is to excise this growth in the liberal state, a dangerous side effect of contact with and appropriation of the nomadic war machine (the liberal slippery-slope argument is of course always "but then we're no better than the terrorists!") in order to return to the purer, moral design of the Federation: nineteenth century colonialism. Why else would the heartfelt post 9-11 eulogy flow seamlessly into a return to the original series' colonialist project.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:It's a little unfair to describe the original theme of Star Trek to be colonialism when the ideal Roddenberry tried to espouse is discovery and discovery over exploitation. The whole reason for the Prime Directive is to prevent that kind of interference and to allow less developed cultures to evolve without spacemen coming down to impose their technology and ethical standards. Granted there are probably more instances of the Prime Directive being violated than of it being upheld, but it's always shown as having consequences. That's even the case in Into Darkness-- the Nibiruans or whatever make the Enterprise into their new cultural symbol, Kirk loses his command and Spock gets kicked off the ship. Star Trek, at it's basic premise, is explicitly colonialist. The franchise shows how it never ends with discovery, and that the act of discovery is itself appropriation. The oft quote that frames virtually every "Star Trek" story: quote:Space... the Final Frontier. These are the continuing voyages of the starship Enterprise. Her ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Y'all are still ignoring the part of that post where he/she points out that every time the prime directive is violated the consequences are shown. I don't know how you can still classify Star Trek as colonial-imperialist. I mean...I guess you could argue that it's folly to think you could explore without having any impact but then you're just arguing against scientific progress and that everyone should just stay home. What are the consequences in the film? Kirk was portrayed as doing the noble, human, thing and disregarded those regulations to save the primitive people which would have otherwise been wiped out if not for the help of the "explorers". Of course his mentor saw this in him and made sure that whatever punishment he faced was neutered, the federation needs folks like that. The original series is just blatant about it, perhaps giving some lip service to the notion while Kirk uses native populations to wage a proxy war against his enemies.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 19:44
|
|