|
Nero was such a Khan rip-off that actually making a Khan movie seems kind of redundant. Plus being more awesome than Montalban just ain't gonna happen. That said, I'm still pretty optimistic about the movie as a whole. The last film was dumb as poo poo but worked anyway because the characters were actually likable and easily carried you through their big-rear end adventure. If the second film keeps that working and adds a better villain it should be a blast.
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
davidspackage posted:I watched Abrams' Star Trek again last week, and goddamn is it a fun, good movie. Music, casting, humor, it just hits all the right notes. It's pretty impressive when you listen to the commentary and watch the deleted scenes, and see how much it was cut up from its original version. I think it's one of the best examples of a really stupid movie that's nevertheless genuinely entertaining. EDIT: I realized I'm kind of repeating myself here so I'll stop now. 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
In TOS the Enterprise survived nuclear explosions. So I don't think water pressure would be an insurmountable obstacle for their engineering skills. Kind of like how taking off from the ground probably isn't a big deal when you can warp space-time to move at multiples of the speed of light.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:If structural integrity fields are so good, the ship should never get damaged. But it does, so there's limits to how far it can hold the ship together. The deflectors survive weapon hits measured in megatons. Meanwhile we've been building subs with our lovely technology for over a century. This argument isn't even "good" sperging.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Damon Lindelof owns. Lost and Prometheus own. Pissing off pedants owns. Yeah, if you compare the Prometheus script pre- vs post-Lindelof, he made it a lot better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Like the last one I found this to be really effective even though it did things that should have made me hate it. It really benefits from having a better villain though, and it felt less contrived and better thought out (mostly.)
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Plus the admiral had control of them, then they were on the Enterprise. Unless I missed something?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
The wiki plot summary is kind of wrong though. The properties of his blood are established WAY earlier in the film.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Lots of us are with you, don't worry. Don't worry about the venom some of these guys are spitting, you'll see it's a consistent theme in the thread We all know about RLM and making  posts linking to them over and over doesn't convince anybody of anything. They aren't some special loving authority.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Why does Indiana Jones ever leave his house? He always ends up leading the Nazis to the thing he's trying to keep them from getting, and God always kills all the bad guys at the end anyway. And why do Jew-hating Nazis want to find a box full of the wrath of Yahweh, for gently caress's sake? And how do the Nazis have flying wings and MP-40s in 1936? Just making a long list of spergy nitpicks about how a film isn't perfectly consistent or "realistic" isn't interesting criticism and doesn't really prove anything except that you're a pedant, unless you can explain why anybody should care.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:True but how is his emotion at Khan during the fight on the flying car useful? Khan pegged Spock as an unfeeling robot who couldn't muster the passion to prevail in combat. "How can you break an arm if you can't even break a rule?" Then Spock uses his rage to literally break Khan's arm in the fight. Pro tip: when in a fistfight with a genetically engineered homicidal tyrant, this is a desirable outcome. And you're accusing the filmmakers of intellectual laziness? I mean, you've got to make SOME effort to connect the dots. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 15:43 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
In your rush to be smartasses you've overlooked the fact that the admiral was also trying to start a galactic war that would have casualties way beyond a ship crashing. It wasn't just about saving the Enterprise, bigger issues were at stake.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Kirk was willing to surrender to said admiral and give him everything he wanted, "just spare my crew." That was before he had the means to do anything else. Once Scotty cut the power the situation changed. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 17:49 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
api call girl posted:And as the movie painstakingly establishes, going to the Klingon homeworld to then kill a bunch of klingons in "self-defense" was a horrendously bad idea that runs counter to every one of humanity's then ideals. And possibly accomplished the admiral's evil goals of instigating war, just in a way he didn't plan for. I think the admiral literally says words to that effect himself. If he doesn't and I'm misremembering, it's still just about as obvious as McCoy's tribble epiphany. It's really obvious that there is a space Cold War, the Klingons are the Soviets, and the admiral is like a crazier General Curtis LeMay who just wants to instigate a real war and get it over with. It's cribbed straight form the original series all the way through Star Trek VI.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:No, it's painted as the right thing to do in order to capture Khan and put him on trial*, as opposed to using torpedo drones or whatever. This is a really bizarre stance since the whole movie is about how Kirk isn't actually a good captain yet and develops over the course of the movie. Violating Klingon territory and getting into a gunfight instead of bombing it blindly was "better," but not actually "good," as the movie makes really obvious.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Much like the reasoning behind the plot points, we're going in circles, because I think the most terrible decision was letting Khan free on a dreadnought orbiting the planet he already bombed twice. If they keep Khan prisoner, they can't take over the Vengeance because only he has the insider knowledge necessary to do so. So the Vengeance reboots its systems and disintegrates them all, then the evil maniac admiral with all of Starfleet at his disposal starts a galactic war. If they let Khan loose, the worst case scenario is one evil maniac with one Starship who goes on to do...something...against all the rest of Starfleet. So tell us again where the "terrible" decision comes in? Taking a "bad" gamble is only bad if you have a better alternative.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:In that case the film needs to poo poo or get off the pot about whether such a war is even that risky (since it's apparently a backburner concern when the plot needs it to be), or avoidable in the long run. What does this even mean? You're just engaging in a huge dodge and arguing in bad faith here. Again, what was the alternative to Kirk's decision in the situation he was presented with? If he didn't have a better alternative it wasn't "the most terrible decision" was it? The risk of war isn't really something the film is wishy-washy about, the CHARACTERS are just more preoccupied with what's right in front of their noses, like the constant threat of being blown up. computer parts posted:Yes and the outcome is upended. This is known as "irony". Plus this is the same Kirk who admits to Spock he doesn't know what he's doing. The whole film is tearing down his excessive cockiness.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Astroman posted:A lot could happen in between "A" and "B" which makes giving Khan the keys to a giant fuckoff warship which he uses to wreck a city a pretty horrible move, in retrospect. There wasn't a lot between A and B though, because the admiral had direct control over the whole fleet. There was no question of if he could start a war, just when and how he went about it. It's like saying Curtis LeMay couldn't have started WWIII if he was just a little bit crazier (and we're talking about a guy who literally advocated preemptive nuclear war.) But I guess reality had a plot hole there. yronic heroism posted:It also seems incredibly predictable that Khan will get those keys hands-down. And I mean predictable in the narrative. Since both Kirk and Spock see it coming, and really only Simon Pegg and Kirk stand in the way of Superkillguy. (But I guess if we are second-guessing Kirk deciding to launch a raid to catch the guy in Act I, we can now second guess him not telling Scotty "set to kill, seriously, bro.") Wouldn't having Scotty kill Khan after they took the bridge (which would be before he actually did anything justifying a summary execution) be kind of, I don't know, hosed up for Star Trek? Scotty only got him with the stun because he totally blindsided him, and we have no reason to think Scotty of all people is the type to ambush murder a dude he barely knows when he resigned over a lot less. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 19:18 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:You really want to go into the realm of alternate movie plot history? No, I'm telling you the movie presents a situation, and Kirk makes a decision that's logical based on the information the character has available to him, so calling it "terrible" doesn't make very much sense. He's not operating in a vacuum and giving Khan the keys to a ship "just because." As far as his character is able to reasonably discern the only alternative to that is everyone dying and the evil plot going on unhindered. That said, none of your alternate scenarios fit the facts of the situation as presented to Kirk though. yronic heroism posted:Bum rush the enemy ship with most of his crew, since the Vengeance apparently only has twelve guys on it. Or since they're at earth already, call Starfleet and let them know the admiral's dastardly plan. Even ram the other ship though I guess they already did that in Nemesis. I think this is a pointless exercise that distracts from dumb plotting, but there you go. They couldn't bum rush the ship without Khan because Khan was the only one who knew how to get into the ship. They couldn't ram it because they were dead in space. And if Kirk can call Starfleet, so can the guy who outranks him by miles, making that avenue pointless. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 19:32 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Scotty was the key to getting in, not Khan. Except that nobody had any idea how to get into the ship without Khan telling them every step of the way. How did you miss that? 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:They weren't dead in space because they had engines that were keeping them from falling to earth. Because a wreck that can barely hover = RAMMING SPEED? yronic heroism posted:And the point of calling Starfleet would be to expose the plot, not to immediately win a pissing match. A distinction without a difference. If the admiral can just tell everyone to ignore the captain (pro tip, they can, that's what being an admiral means) it's a waste of time. yronic heroism posted:The text of the film, good goons. Which has nothing to do with anything we're talking about? Oh, that's right, you're not arguing in good faith, you're engaging in a series of dodges and changes of subject whenever you get cornered on something. api call girl posted:All 50 of them making the incredibly risky/dangerous cross-over in the debris field? That's not Kirk. And how do you MAKE Khan cooperate, exactly? The Star Trek staple of torture? And aren't the crew busy dealing with all the huge holes blasted in the ship's critical systems 5 minutes earlier? It's not like squadrons of Klingons did any good against Khan, either. And what could go wrong with 50 guys with their phasers set to "kill" shooting off inside the bridge at Khan all at once? sean10mm fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Danger posted:RLM continues to sounds like the worst. It's just another example how a certain kind of fan ruins everything. They did some funny Star Wars prequel reviews with a serial killer reviewer gag (and to be fair, some good content too), and now people think they're the last word in movies and link to them as a substitute for thinking about anything. When they got away from the gag Plinkett reviews they got boring, unfunny and often just pedantic.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Now that they've blown off the green babes gag, where do you go from there anyway? Shapshifter babe from Star Trek VI, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
If Khan having a space ship 300 years before the events of the movie is confusing, keep in mind that it was basically just a cargo container loaded with human popsicles. It had no warp drive, and no real capability to do much of anything but drift along and keep the cryo tubes running. And Star Trek "history" is a hilarious tangle because like people said earlier, they just made up dates in the 1960s and didn't give a poo poo, and most of the dates have come and gone without genetic supermen running around conquering Asia or whatever, and none of it was consistent even at the time anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Danger posted:That Star Trek lacks historical accuracy is not a plot hole or lack of foresight. Geez. To be clear, I for one am not seriously arguing this at all. Star Trek history is messy if you're trying to reconcile it with real history, but that's not a "real" problem with something written in the 1960s. The whole Eugenic Wars idea is pretty wacky but it's all in good fun, plus they were talking about genetic engineering in a 1960s TV show, how cool was that?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
I can't imagine killing a room full of commanding officers would impede Starfleet operations in any way. 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
Non-smartass observation: The villain-in-chief was also the admiral in charge of all the ships around Earth (he chaired the meeting of all their captains that got shot up), and the one who selected the Enterprise for the mission (for the logical reason that Kirk wanted personal revenge for Pike's killing and thus would be more easily manipulated.) So... Won't the rest of the fleet be where he drat well wants it to be? Which I'm guessing would be way the heck away from wherever he's staging a tense confrontation with the Enterprise using a top-secret warship nobody is supposed to know about? And Kirk told him would be headed back to Earth with Harrison/Khan, so wouldn't the admiral would have a pretty good idea where that might end up if he has to chase them? sean10mm fucked around with this message at 14:07 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Edit: forget it.
sean10mm fucked around with this message at 16:52 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
The villain controls where the ships go. Unless where the Federation ships are is inconvenient to his plot, it's not a plot hole. And a guy trying to invent a pretext for a war is probably not interested in a passive defense. Keeping ships in orbit doesn't do anything about a terrorist who took a one-way beaming trip to the other side of the galaxy, either. If he can beam back it doesn't help either. To use a real-world analogy because why not at this point, we don't keep carrier battle groups just parked outside New York City indefinitely because terrorism is a thing. poo poo, we didn't do it during World War II when multiple hostile navies were a thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
Baldrik posted:Khans chest looks a little saggy. Have i been seeing pecks all this time when it really was boobs? I don't think so, everything I've seen/read indicates he was just in really good shape at the time. Pecs can just look kind of booby sometimes?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:1) Yes, space is really big. The idea that Admiral Robocop has gone over Federation space - which is very big - with a fine-toothed comb to look for hidden weapons (??) or the Ark of the Covenant is kind of silly. We scan for asteroids now but in a relatively small space. The Federation is what, hundreds of thousands of square light years?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Kind of related to this but maybe not really, I really feel like they whiffed on giving Uhura an interesting job. On the TV series she was basically a phone operator, which made more sense in the 1960s but is just dumb now. It's clear they don't quite know how the hell to turn that into anything interesting. So she's a sort-of linguist who still pretty much sits at the radio or gets randomly pulled into some scenes. IT, cryptography, cyber-warfare, even military intelligence would be relatively organic expansions on Uhura's starting point from the TV show and would fill roles none of the other iconic characters directly do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
api call girl posted:You could consider that that's what she's doing already, it just looks like glorified phone operator work because gently caress getting into the nitty gritty of computer janitoring on a movie. gently caress, I don't want to see it. Well, it's not like I want to watch her run anti-virus software or reformat space hard drives. But it's clear (to me, anyway) that her role is underdeveloped and vague.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yup. How thrilled would you be to see "oh nice, a Sikh!" with a full beard and a ceremonial dagger in his boot or whatever and then find out ten minutes later he's fuckin' Space Osama Bin Laden. If they were to do something like the cool, morally ambiguous badass Nemo from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I could get behind but I don't know about insisting that you cast the guy who flies aircraft into buildings as a POC. Making him a stereotypical idea of a terrorist would be terrible, but that still leaves a lot of room to make a full-on villain, not just a morally ambiguous/neutral character. A Khan who was a real Sikh and gloriously, awesomely full-on evil could be great so long as it didn't play into lovely stereotypes in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
I think this Khan was lacking warmth and charisma, but gained in menace. He also did a good job getting across his sense of superiority over others. And in fairness, the circumstances Khan was in during this movie called less for charm and more for manipulation and aggression.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:We're never again going to get a deliberately paced cerebral(ish) Trek film are we? The only one to take a for-real serious shot at that was The Motion Picture really. Some of the TNG movies were boring and stupid but that's not the same thing. The good old movies were fun adventure movies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:According to the standards "slow paced, cerebral, and not The Motion Picture", Star Trek has never been good. Pretty much. I always have a soft spot for TMP. It just feels huge and grandiose and weird. The effects and music are still great. And Spock is at his most genuinely alien. It has a rough start though, and Decker and Kirk are just kind of lovely to watch for like the first half hour, but it all kind of works out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 02:05
|
|