|
That was really good. Loved just the feeling of dread as you saw Star Fleet make terrible decision after terrible decision (which, ultimately, was intentional) - they were bailed out by Khan when it came down to them vs. the admiral, but then of course the ultimate tragedy was even worse - let's not forget that a city was loving plowed. Especially when the obvious question - why did he come at us with a gun and not a bomb? - wasn't asked because Kirk's head (and nobody's head) was on straight, and they end up getting destroyed for it. It's interesting how the movie opens with a breach of protocol, and then every breach of protocol afterwards leads to catastrophe. Cumberbatch's performance was awesome, in every sense of the word. I may have missed something - within the timeline of the film, had Khan been a genocider? Did he get Minority Report'd? So, in conclusion, StarFleet caused 9/11 No Wave fucked around with this message at 01:00 on May 23, 2013 |
#
¿
May 23, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
mr. stefan posted:This is another part of why I feel they should have ditched the Old Spock scene and done someone doing an archive binge instead to find out who Khan is. They tell you "this guy is superhuman, he's dangerous and evil" but they don't give you reasons why he is, just Old Spock's word on the subject. Contrast how it would have been if they played it similar to how Space Seed did the reveal, a burning, extended "oh poo poo" moment when someone is listing off all the atrocities Khan is responsible for, and how he's as arrogant as he is because in a world ruled by supermen, he was the most brutal and ruthless of them all. I like that the film didn't present an objective, archival truth of his true nature to us - and instead, just the recollection of a time-traveler told offscreen about an entirely different history. You don't know how responsible both Kirk and Spock's betrayal of Khan was for developing his hatred of humanity enough to crash the ship into earth. Kirk is the first to betray, and without cause beyond his rage over his father-figure's death. And I think that dynamic is pretty great. No Wave fucked around with this message at 02:06 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Honestly I don't understand the whole pseudo-philosophical "I can't tell you what happened in my timeline because it would taint yours," BS Old Spock keeps bringing up in these movies. He already irreparably hosed up the timeline. Everything is unfolding differently now. Nothing he "predicts" holds much weight anymore anyway so he might as well tell all.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Nice one. All the same I'm surprised the writers didn't catch this and do the math (maybe they did but didn't care). All he could have said was "they've been asleep for over 200 years" or something. This would have made it consistent with the original series without having to actually say that a eugenics war happened in the 20th Century.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:The thing that gets me is that Kirk and Spock have to look like Kirk and Spock. 60s bowl haircut and the like. Everyone is doing an impression of the original character. No one would be impressed with Karl Urban if he was doing a lovely Deforest Kelly, we love it cause he nailed those mannerisms. So if all that's ok why is ok to change Khan up much? I really liked the performance that was put out but it was so different then the original that I have a hard time seeing them as yhe same dude. If Harrison was his own villian movie would have been Solid as hell. Maybe if they had even explained who khan was in the movie I might have liked it more, really felt like the movie leaned on me the audience to already know who he was to set him up as a baddie then any dialog or action.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
The "dialogue" might not have been "brilliant" because these people are pretty young. Spock barely has an understanding of his own emotions and Kirk is extremely immature. I do think Uhura didn't have a good reason to be so dramatic though.Blistex posted:If you can't explain a movie's plot in a minute or less, then it's either a poorly written story, or 34 hours long. lol lol. Where do you guys get this stuff. No Wave fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Yes, but things that happened in the 20th century aren't, so the eugenics war, and the freezing of Kahn and his people, should have taken place in the 1990s as originally written. Unless you're saying that by going back in time, Spock arrived at a completely different parallel universe in which everything in the past and future is different and his arrival was predestined. But now we're getting into crazy philosophical territory that I'm sure the writers will never bother addressing (but it would be interesting).
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:3. After introducing all the characters and the universe again in the 2009 movie, bringing in new fans who were maybe not familiar with Trek, they had a chance to create their own stories in the Trek universe. Instead, they are just plundering Trek's past for references and call-backs. Instead of creating their own iconic moments and expanding the mythology, they simply have Spock yell "KHAN!!!" so we can all nudge each other and say "Remember that?". The movie seems to have no interest in creating its own identity beyond pew-pew-pew. b.) The movie uses the Khan moment in order to assert its own identity by being different from the original. Note that Kirk yells Khan after he threatens Kirk and Kirk is stuck on the planet. For Kirk, the rage was one of anger over what will happen and his inability to stop it (and, from what I could tell, was actually all part of his plan to make Khan think that he was in a worse situation than he really was). For Spock, it is a reaction to the loss of his friend, and the rage is one of demanding revenge. Using the same line highlights what's different about the films. Wrath of Khan Kirk is occupied with protecting those who are alive, and Into Darkness Spock wants revenge. The second is a much darker and less noble instinct, and this is a darker and less noble movie in general. It's about how Starfleet went wrong this time. No Wave fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with Section 31 is that they're a subversion of the ideals of Star Trek. Their existence says to characters in Star Trek 'You know all those times you told aliens about your enlightened sensibilities, every time you didn't have to choose the lesser of two evils, the wantless utopia that you live in? It only exists because we run around in the background committing genocide on people who threaten it. The evil exists, we just go into the darkness so that you can sleep with a clean conscience every night'. I think it's fair to assume that up through the start of the movie, Kirk had been pretty peaceful - he'd never lost any of his crew. So this distinction between 09 and 13 has a basis. Think of it like the Zero Dark Thirty that Glenn Greenwald will let you watch. I didn't sit through them, but apparently the credits included this line: quote:THIS FILM IS DEDICATED TO OUR POST-9/11 VETERANS No Wave fucked around with this message at 13:22 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Casting a Puerto Rican instead of a Mexican to play an Indian...would not have been a step forward by any means. That said, at least it wouldn't have been a step back. As it stands, Star Trek Into Darkness having Khan played by possibly the whitest guy I've ever seen in my life means that we're now somehow less progressive now than we were back in 1967. If you are saying that the primary concern of a film today should be to cast minorities whenever possible, make that argument, and then praise movies that do so even if they are not critically praised. Because if that is what is most important in a film - more important than the actual film - then you should be spilling ink on that. You are saying that the value of a film is subordinate to the value of casting, so your favorite movies therefore must all be diverse. Instead we get this constant discussion where we introduce a framework that only applies to films that are critically acclaimed otherwise. Do you consider Crash one of the best films of the past decade? If not, why are you applying this framework so selectively? Is diversity of casting really more important than the film itself? Would your ranking of the ten best films of the past decade have to be diverse? Or is this a political concern that is external to the film itself, like Roman Polanski being a rapist? I'm using this example because the political concern is serious, but few people feel the need to interject that during every analysis of Rosemary's Baby - or, at the very least, they use it to inform the film rather than dismiss it. No Wave fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you? What could possibly make you think this.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I wanted to compile a (non-comprehensive) list of real arguments that have been made in this thread in favour of Cumberbatch's casting as Khan: Like... okay, you have a metric, and you've decided that by this metric Khan should be indian. Now what.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I would argue that canon is no more or less relevant than the current film says it is. But while Trek '09 used Nero to mock fixation upon canon, STID glorifies that same fixation. Old Spock gives the Word of God that this is the Khan of WoK and Space Seed, who is Bad News. This knowledge is given so much credit that Young Spock actually treats it as a substitute for real research and deduction. It's strange that you see the characters completely mishandle Khan and then conclude that old Nimoy was right. I see it as the most direct flouting of reliance upon canon as possible. I also don't understand why we'd read Khan in WoK and Khan in this one as the same person. They're clearly completely different characters. I don't think they have anything in common beyond being frozen and the word Khan. No Wave fucked around with this message at 01:16 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:So did you, like, get so excited to present a rebuttal that you didn't bother to read the next paragraph? The truth is obvious and in front of us - these are, obviously, not the same character regardless of the state of the "universes". I don't know how much more clear that can be.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:What you're arguing is at best ambiguously presented in the film. It is not shown, let alone told. We see Nimoy describe "Khan Noonien Singh" as the most dangerous opponent the Enterprise has ever faced, and then shortly thereafter Khan Noonien Singh does a loving grinch grin and murders thousands. Neither Spock is shown to have any personal awareness that their communication played a role in this, which means that if they are responsible, Young Spock's character has actually regressed from his conscientiousness at the start of the film. No Wave fucked around with this message at 01:34 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Unmature posted:Yeah, but... so? Taking this movie as its own we have NO reference point for how powerful a klingon really is. I guess we see them eff up Kirk, but he got beat up a ton in the first movie.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The fictional set-up is what it is. The problem is a real person wrote the script and half-assed it. So they do maneuver to get their airlock aligned and something is keeping them in orbit until the plot dictates they need to almost crash. Did you watch the Room and conclude Tommy Wiseau's character was a really smart guy because some other character said he was? Because I concluded Tommy Wiseau couldn't write a convincing smart character. No Wave fucked around with this message at 21:12 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I think, by far, the best thing to come out of this film is John Cho taking the piss and passive-aggressively giving JJ Abrams and the casting director poo poo in interviews.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Is it wrong to hope for a movie with the cast as old fogies?
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:There are no ships around Earth because it would have been inconvenient to the lovely plot they were trying to hang together, like a myriad of other moments in both movies. Trying to justify it through imaginary fleet operations is kind of hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm not saying there should be more Klingons. The problem is that, once it's all shaken out, the plot appears to be all about the admiral (what was his name if the whole movie was about him, huh?) and section 31, yet the admiral is on screen for maybe 10 minutes and section 31 is mentioned once.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In this film the decision to have Khan pretty obviously came first and then attempts were made to shoehorn themes for him into the plot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Why is Khan who he is and not another character? Is it important he's genetically enhanced?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Anyway, this is all secondary to the problem that the themes don't work that well anymore because they've been taken from other movies and put into a new plot. Kirk's hubris hasn't been important for quite some time, and doesn't figure into any of the lengthy combat scenes at the climax, until suddenly it does when Kirk announces that it does. Compare that with Wrath of Khan where the Enterprise's asskicking and resulting shield trick is entirely a result of Kirk's hubris. In one movie the theme is organic to the plot, in the other one it's clearly being introduced to a story that doesn't necessarily need it. In this case, I also don't understand how Kirk's hubris hasn't been important when he is disciplined by StarFleet for that exact reason, he fires Scotty for that exact reason, and then launches an ill-advised attack on Klingon for that exact reason. This is all in the first forty-five minutes of the film. It's one of the primary motivators of the plot, and I have no idea how you'd come to believe that it's "not important". No Wave fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:Such wonderful character development too! I sure liked knowing that Spock needed his girlfriend's permission to heroically sacrifice himself for others. Cause that's what women are like amirightfellas?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
If the complaint is that none of the female characters have an arc/develop... I'd agree! But if the claim is that it's sexist to portray a male character overcoming a stereotypically male fault... I'd disagree.
No Wave fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'm not sure that undermines SMG's interpretation. The fact of Marcus's disrobing not actually making any sense or having to do with anything else going on whatsoever only serves to put more immediate weight on it, right? Kind of an "oh, by the way, this is a REALLY Strong Female Character we've got ourselves here, yes sir." It really underlines the fact that in a popular action blockbuster you're getting T&A no matter what so you may as well grit your teeth and wait it out. I'm trying to get to the core of your objection and it seems like it's that people had the opportunity to get aroused by Alice Eve's body - as if their arousal is somehow harming her. To object to putting a female character in a position where she could cause arousal simply for that fact is to grant all power to the male gaze. To have an attractive female character and to comment upon how that changes her relationship with the male leads might not represent an ideal world, but I think it's a totally fair depiction/commentary on the world we live in. Someone's attractiveness is probably the single strongest determining factor in how they are treated by strangers. Again, a movie can't objectify someone. A movie depicts - the viewer objectifies. Obviously a movie can invite objectification, which this film does, but then rebukes Kirk for doing exactly that. If the complaint is "can't we at last have a summer blockbuster without t&a???", I could probably name some but that's not the point either. I mean, this film engages with the fact that the (male) summer blockbuster viewer wants to see T&A and then rebukes them for it. Is it better for the audience - to whom the film is made to communicate - to ignore that they do want it, or to engage with that desire? I mean, to go further, by saying that people have lost something when they show their skin onscreen you are creating something to be embarrassed about. They are effectively losing control of their body when you say that it's a tragedy for them to show their skin onscreen, because no matter how well you phrase it you are shaming them for doing so by claiming that something is lost. Even if you blame Abrams, you are reinforcing the completely arbitrary shame for the female "victim". No Wave fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jul 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
pigdog posted:You'll notice the plot holes after the credits roll, but not while the movie is rolling, because it's moving at such a breakneck pace. I'm sure the first Star Wars movies had plenty of plot holes, too, and I'd really liken this one to them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Agreed. Abrams has no idea how to properly slow pan across a model for a ten minute long eye candy shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
lizardman posted:I do think you were right in the sense that there's a certain reverence for the Vulcans that the original continuity had that I don't feel in the newest films; I admit this isn't exactly fair considering we can only gauge this from two movies where Vulcans aren't the central focus, but where before I felt like the Vulcans as a whole were treated like monks or Buddhists, in the past couple movies they seem like a race of spergy space nerds.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 20:58
|
|