|
casa de mi padre posted:Every time a color is muted a voice is silenced. Millions of pixels cried out in terror etc etc etc. I caught the 9 minute preview in front of The Hobbit on Saturday and May (is it?) cannot get here fast enough. Just make a little stop off by the side in January so I can finish up with Wheel of Time first.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Then Kirk and Khan can TEAM UP. It's so silly I almost like it. DFu4ever posted:And Khan would be played by Vin Diesel. Great, now I'm going to be disappointed no matter what actually ends up happening in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
In the vein of DS9 discussion, I still think that Bab5 told a better "war is hell" story than DS9, once the main arc kicked into motion, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah but this would be the first time that Kirk and Marcus get together, which makes sense if you're looking for a canonical love interest for Kirk's early career. Ughhhh.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Nemesis didn't just break Picard, it drat near broke Star Trek. I think it's the absolute pits. Worse maybe, even, than The Final Frontier. I see someone's judiciously ignoring the movie that did break Star Trek.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
The circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Kelvin and Kirk's father's death have got to have made the event at least as big as the sinking of the Titanic. There's no question that people who know their naval history (i.e. Starfleet naval officer candidates) would know most of the weird details surrounding it and it makes extra sense that Kirk would be the one to make the connection. Hell, Pike even wrote his dissertation around it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I'll agree to disagree there. I think it could be enjoyable in the same way 09 was, but I seriously doubt that mirroring situations from an old movie are going to be resonant as anything but callbacks. Sure, there's the fact that you're placing a young Kirk into no-win situations and forcing him to take a level of responsibility that he didn't at the same point in TOS is a cute sentiment, but again why the hell would you need Khan to do that? For the sake of thematic rhyming? I'm sure someone is going to try to stick their dick in my mouth over what I'm about to say next, but that's the kind of "style over substance" screenwriting mentality that makes for the lousier end of Star Trek like Insurrection and Nemesis. On the other hand Insurrection and Nemesis didn't even have style.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Not being a serious "hardcore" Trekkie or anything, and only going by what's been posted in this thread and that linked imdb spoiler review, let me try to piece together some coherent ramblings on the Star Trek reboot: As EvilTobaccoExec says, there was a conscious decision to step away from the accepted Roddenberry view of the Star Trek utopian future. In TOS and much of TNG there's that sense of there's always something new, wonderful, and magical right around the next corner. The ship and its crew would encounter some fantastical new race in next week's episode, Q would do something wacky, the holodeck would do or show us something totally off the chain. In DS9 and on, the universe is darker, more gray, more drab. We have established factions, internecine warfare, long-running plot threads. In Dune series terms, the future has been fixed by the prophetic eye. There is no more discovery, there is no more mystery, there is only death (of the franchise). This problem becomes worse with Voyager and then Enterprise itself being a prequel (sort of the same problem you see with the Star Wars prequels--we know where we're going AND the PT manages to be a joyless mess much of the time). ST09 upends that while still aping the trends of the modern derelict Star Trek franchise. Take some of the most extremes--the plot of Nemesis, the overwroughtness of planetary destruction from DS9 and certain of the other movies, etc. One of Nero's prime characteristics as a villain is his slavish adherence to "canon": "I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen!" The end of ST09 is both a rejection and a celebration of canon--a rejection of the previous regime in the franchise, and a celebration of what Star Trek originally was. It even ends with the familiar opening monologue of Star Trek TV series (prior to DS9/VOY/etc). STID, then, goes further. Section 31 is a long-running cruel joke on the franchise, a creation of the times in which the series they appeared in to make Star Trek a more "mature" or "complicated" thing. STID exposes Section 31, makes it the primary antagonist instead of the expected Harrison/Khan, and then deals it a crushing defeat. At the end of the movie, STID brings us back to the beginning of the TOS Enterprise's 5-year mission, in a total rejection/repudiation of what's been done to the franchise in the name of grittiness and moral complexity as personified by Section 31. The ST reboot is rebooting the franchise in far more ways than just taking us back to the beginning of the relationship of the TOS Enterprise's command crew. It's doing something far more ambitious. I hope this is borne out in the future of the reboot movie franchise, and also going forward if TV shows are to be revived. e: jivjov might be familiar with the tack that I've taken with this as he and I have disagreed on the nature of the Star Wars EU franchise in the BB thread. I find much of the Star Wars EU distasteful in much the same way it appears some have found the previous Star Trek regime distasteful, viewed partially through the lens of what Frank Herbert has described in the Dune series (since at least Dune Messiah). e2: given that JJ Abrams will also helm the new Star Wars movies I'm seriously hoping that what he did to Star Trek is 100% intentional and will be reflected in what he does to Star Wars. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:It's a valid criticism when the people most upset about the leaked plot details are pulling the "not in my Trek" card. A lot of stuff is Trek, whether people want to admit it or not. That said you can reduce anything to sounding silly as poo poo, as has been pointed out before, so I really have no patience for any criticism that comes from a place of "well I haven't actually seen this film but I read what some angry nerd thinks on the Internet and now I agree!" See also: the "not MY Mandarin!" thing in the Iron Man 3 thread
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:Its like they literally sat down with the intent to piss off star trek sperglords. After reading the last couple posts, Thank God.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Never underestimate nerd sperg. Poe's Law, Corollary #2. There is probably someone sincerely unironically espousing your parody of their position. Also see: Wookieepedia. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Being a person of (some) color this conversation is steering rapidly into offensive land itself. e: It's at least partly this privileged position that you can decide to dole out roles to minorities like scraps from a table. Like we're pets. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Apr 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
der juicen posted:What. The. gently caress. On the other hand, Star Dreadnoughts.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:(Shrug) okay. I think that's relying on the viewer to bring a lot to the situation and bridge that gap. Fortunately that's kind of, you know, what art involves.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
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.  Tell us more about how wrong you are.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:I was getting vaguely annoyed about people saying Into Darkness is a rejection of Old Trek, and I think I've figured out why it was bugging me: It's the other way round, a celebration of the influences of the older works, and this can be clearly seen by comparing the villains from the '09 film and ID. I don't think you and the other mentality is necessarily in disagreement.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Danger posted:Is it really seen as an error that Star Trek doesn't represent the 20th century with historical accuracy? Consider the historical accuracy we generally have of the late 1700s.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I just appreciated one more thing that reveals just how lazy the plot is: The jump a year forwards at the end. Why? Because that crisis with the Klingons, the war that the head of Starfleet is convinced is coming enough to set in motion all the events of the film, the threat that's realistic enough that everyone on the Enterprise thinks that full-scale war is just one bad incident away - turns out it's just not a big deal. It's a year later, nothing happened, nothing to see here, move along. The film doesn't even give Marcus the decency of being an antagonist who's faced with a genuine dilemma and picks the wrong option; he's just flat-out wrong. Good because that cloak and dagger Iraq War poo poo doesn't deserve any time of day in Star Trek.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
I am a complete dry boring spergtastic neckbearded literalist and let me tell you about these plot holes.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
What you're telling me is you need to be relentlessly mocked on every single level.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
The best part of all of the page and half of teeth gnashing last night is Ricardo Montalban is about as non-white as Cameron Diaz.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Captain Hilarious posted:From Space Seed: Note: A sikh. 
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:legit criticisms of the casting. Pictured: Khan Noonien Singh 
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:90% of the film could have been virtually the same with very minor alterations. This is an even better derail, reductionism and fragmentalism.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
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. Your argument is that they didn't cast someone brown enough. Think about this.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:perhaps, if he'd been "dusky" Like, you guys realize the Wrath of Khan version of the Khan character, that's a SUN TAN, right?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted: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. Pictured: non-white pinnacle of eugenics 
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Hit Man posted:how they can cast younger versions of every cast member portrayed ethnically accurate to date e: too flippant and off-point VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 19:00 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
They could open a casting call to anyone who's got argyria.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Medoken posted:I felt emotionally manipulated when I realized the screenwriter had given himself a way out of that particular corner of the story. I think the important question here is how do you feel about Rapunzel healing Flynn at the end of Tangled?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Reminder that the KHAAAAAAN scream is only mocked/spoofed slightly less than the generic NOOOOOOO. A callback to it done completely seriously (like that one poster suggested upthread) would be missing the point. (Much like the new ROTJ Vader scream, which did effectively ruin one of the single best moments of the original Star Wars movies)
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
nictigre03 posted:Haven't heard of this. They added a new scream to ROTJ? Yep, when the Emperor's electrocuting Luke, you know how Vader's just looking back and forth and he doesn't have another line until way later? Yeah. It's like poetry.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Danger posted:Because it happened, it's canon, he saw it happen and will not abide innaccuracy in Trek canon. Given the ability to retcon canon, return his wife and family, heal the universe of all wounds and grant peaceful relationship between the Romulan Empire and the Federation, the avid Star Trek fan chooses instead to poo poo the bed. It's almost like they're trying to say something. I can't figure it out, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Snak posted:This is unironically Nero's reasoning, though. Even if he can save Romulus in the past, there is no way to bring back HIS Romulus an HIS family. By changing the past everything will be different even if he could go back to the future. Translation: if he's not allowed "his" Star Trek, he's going to take Star Trek away from everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Kangra posted:I agree! That they did so while cashing in on the reputation of a well-known and much-loved universe with decades of history is unfortunate. You're going to have to point that universe out because I don't see one from here.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Before this lovefest gets even further I'd like to point out, yet again, that Ricardo Montalban was white. Shatner-Kirk was about as tanned as his Khan was in Wrath. At what point are you just quibbling over etymology of surnames? VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 08:27 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Hispanic counts as white? Waspy white as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's possible I condensed 40 minutes of discussion into 4 words? So let's clarify: If it wasn't condensible to those 4 words you're illiterate/lazy and if it was they were illiterate/lazy.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:People should be complaining about "Khan is a white guy," because that's regression. These aren't mutually exclusive complaints. Khan IS a white guy, though. You folks keep skirting that.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Not really, because he's not. If your chief argument is that a white guy getting a role originally played by a white guy isn't brown enough or has a last name not brown enough then you're the racist one. Racist.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 21:09
|
|