|
jivjov posted:I'm pretty sure he stomped on one of her limbs. There was a gross bone-cracking sound and everything. Yeah I think he broke her kneecap. He kicked Kirk in the stomach.
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Klingons, who are here a substitute for every nation that was harmed by the devotees of "dicks, pussies and assholes" ideology, are presented as monsters. The what?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Devorum posted:I just saw the movie, and while I enjoyed it for the most part it really felt like it was trying to be a Mass Effect movie, rather than a Star Trek movie. From Spock's volcano armor, to the fast pace of the action, the vehicle designs, the rifle designs, the city itself. Even the gunship seemed lifted straight from Mass Effect. I dunno man, that volcano armor was straight out of TOS.  +  = 
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
EVERYBODY STOP REPORTING PEOPLE FOR TALKING ABOUT THE RACIAL ASPECTS OF THIS MOVIE.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:It's interesting how people keep talking about Django as being immutably black: Django Unchained's Django is not an adaptation of Franco Nero's character Django anymore than Pam Grier's Jackie Brown is an adaptation of Steven Keats's character Jackie Brown in The Friends of Eddie Coyle
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:So wait, are you saying that he's based on an Elmore Leonard character? He's based on Jango Fett I think. (Leonard's version of the character was named Burke, the name Jackie Brown comes from The Friends of Eddie Coyle which is one of those mid-70s low-budget crime thrillers that Tarantino eats up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Not sure how the progressivism of a man who's been dead for 22 years factors into this film.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Sten Freak posted:He's a bad rear end, but he's flawed, a fighting, drinking, rule-bending, rule-breaking woman banging captain of a space ship. These are not and never have been played as flaws, thank goodness.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'd say Kirk's fighting has never ended up well for him. Naw but his bravery and willingness to fight against absurd odds is what got him the Enterprise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
TOS: Space KGB TNG: Space Cossacks
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I don't know where in Khan it says what you say it says about the Kobayashi Maru. I love that film, watch it regularly, and can only remember that it established that he cheated, like he does in 09. But it's good for you to bring it up. Kirk didn't learn it's lesson in 09, but he does learn it in ITD. Which is why at the end, he is finally ready to be the TOS Kirk and lead the five year mission. It doesn't say that in Khan, it's from some book.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
1st AD posted:a good piece of cinema whereas Wrath of Kahn never tries to be anything but a Star Trek movie. What the gently caress does that mean?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't think most Star Trek movies actually attempt to do anything that deviates from what you might find in Star Trek: the TV show. You get similar types of stories and similar production design and directing and basically no risks are ever taken anywhere. They're movies for people who like Star Trek. That's really not true of Wrath of Khan at all. It was a huge move away from the series. The whole concept of Starfleet as a structured military organization basically began with it. The idea of addressing their advanced age was a risky and beautiful move.The idea of space as a naval field of battle was basically only ever explored once, in one single episode. The idea of adapting a literary classic in American sci-fi was, to my knowledge, untrod ground since Forbidden Planet in '56. The production design was a complete change of pace from everything that came before in the series, and is still a genre staple. Hell, they killed the second lead. He wasn't supposed to come back! He was done! He only came back because Khan was so risky and fun that Nimoy changed his mind and wanted to continue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:--hand held space cell phones that are capable of instantaneous faster than light communication Yes what a preposterous thing Star Trek 12, released in the year of our lord 2013, created. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Helsing posted:In both films Kirk has to deal with father issues, immaturity, inability to play by the rules, etc. Spock has trouble expressing his emotions despite being filled with rage and sadness, Ahura.... well actually Ahura doesn't have much character or ac beyond being inexplicably in love with Spock, who is such a complete rear end in a top hat that its never clear why anyone likes him. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Was looking for a video on the new USN Supercarriers and found something magical. The typical undertakings of a nerdy 11 year old, being discussed with the seriousness that only a +30 year old Trek fan, pretending to be Frank Lloyd Wright can muster. It's a 13 minutes long (completely legit) "tour" of a man's journey to "design a better Starship Enterprise". Skip ahead to 7:00 to see the scribblings of a madman, and at 8:50 there are actual scribbles. At 7:11 I let out an audible laugh upon hearing a line that goes counter to the seriousness of the established tone so far. Around 11:00 it gets into some Hahahaha misspelling Matt Jefferies's name in the opening dedication is a hell of a start.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 16:25
|
|
territory. Star Trek's best entertainment value is easily its more hardcore fans.
|
Misplaced ego was not ever Khan's problem. He was always shrewd socially, too - monomaniacal but any ego was dangerously well backed.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
There was this little moment there where I thought because of circumstances and conditions, Khan really was going to be a kind of an ally in this film, which was striking and iriginal and so Star Trekky, but it never happened.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Man, that movie was a loving sea of squandered opportunity.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Like they are opposed to aping the original films. There's aping and there's aping well, though. By that I mean remaking Search for Spock with Kirk would be as lame and lazy as remaking Wrath of Khan with a guy who's only famous because 14 year olds want to see him bang the guy from The Office. The first JJ Star Trek movie was really slick about the way it incorporated elements of series highs like Wrath of Khan with stuff that was bungled in things like Nemesis and also elements of the original series and the cartoon. It all gooped together to make a new movie with purpose. Into Darkness succeeded at that when it was evoking things from DS9 and Undiscovered Country, but everything Khanish was just so lovely.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Timby posted:I asked you this on Twitter ages ago, but have you re-watched Into Darkness? It's still clunky but I find it works a lot better on a small screen ... not sure why. No not yet, I'm still intrigued by what you said but I just can't bring myself to watch it again.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The idea of society as something fragile and difficult to build or protect is completely at odds with Star Trek's bizarre happy spacefuture where everything is fine except for those Reptilian Jews. The latter is quite clearly an ideological fantasy. The complicated thing about Star Trek is that that's really a TNG/Voyager thing. DS9 and TOS are both extremely predicated on the fragile and difficult concept of society. When you get to the Babelian size the franchise has been at since the early 90s, there's a hell of a lot of contradictions in the way the Federation interacts with itself and its neighbors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:With the original Star Trek, the 'intent' was to depict how a utopian society deals with new challenges as it expands outwards. The show would propose such technologies as the 'universal translator' that allows for perfect communication and, thus, perfect harmony. The original Star Trek was never depicting a utopia. It was depicting a relatively decent society that still has major problems with militarization like in The Ultimate Computer and barely-surpressed rage like in Mirror Mirror. Spock was created as a way to comment on our failings and our successes. You are completely off-base here. Hbomberguy posted:On top of that, in ToS the way of achieving utopia is essentially dealing with those guys, the reptilian jews etc. Just who are you talking about here? penismightier fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I don't think Ultimate Computer really criticizes the core policies of the federation, although that is a good oppositional reading. I mean, the basic storyline is this mad scientist who steps in and upsets the established order with his 'progress', with the conclusion being that things were already ideal. I agree that the Federation are unequivocally the good guys in TOS, but I don't think that utopianism immediately follows from that. TOS devotes too much time to exploring the base fear and aggression in all of the characters - from Devil in the Dark to The Enemy Within to even Shore Leave. Don't forget ERrand of Mercy, which pointedly criticizes the militarization of the Federation over and over (even as Kirk doesn't realize it), and caps with: "Even the gods did not spring into being overnight." Hell, if you count the movie era as part of the same series, it's even more barbed - don't forget "let them die." The famous Roddenberry utopianism is a postscript to TOS, something that got into his mind in the TNG era. TOS presents a stable and open society but that is not a utopia and the show, unlike TNG, never pretends it is. Hbomberguy posted:All of the vaguely humanoid space aliens that humanity doesn't get along with? Usually stereotypes of currently-existing ethnicities - but because all of humanity gets along, that makes it okay. 'the problem' of racism, closeted racism, ideology etc. is never really solved. This is why Into Darkness' presentation of the Feds as already-corrupt and warmongers 'just trying to help the federation/humanity survive' and essentially trying to kickstart a war with the klingon empire is really darn observant. It's just featuring "reptilian jews" is a hell of a claim to lay at the show's feet, and the only one that even begins to fit the bill is TNG's depiction of the Ferengi.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Timby posted:It got full-blown in TNG, but you can see the seeds in The Motion Picture. Basically, when Roddenberry discovered acid and cocaine, he gradually became a humanist. Another decade of cocaine and drinking later, we got TNG. Yeah, good point, and it's worth mentioning that he was iced out of the movies by the second one. In the series, particularly the first two seasons, you get lines like: "War, whether we want it, we've got it." "Curious how often you humans get what you don't want." Which would be unthinkable in the utopian era depiction of the Federation. Jack Gladney posted:On the old show the Klingons were just another space civilization, but fascists or whatever. They did cold war stuff with spies and diplomats. All the space-sword warrior pony-tail stuff was Next Generation, or maybe some of the movies. On top of that, the TOS Klingons were supposed to be space Russians, so their soldiers were space Cossacks. TNG did the weird thing where they made all the Klingons soldiers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Khan, the greatest military leader on Earth who conquered most of Asia, is of course a direct reference to Genghis Khan, which makes the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch whitewashing on the caliber of John Wayne in The Conquerer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Because they didn't do a good job in 1966 doesn't mean casting Cumberbatch in the year 2014 wasn't simply disgusting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:There's definitely something very worth notice about how a character that was portrayed by a person of color during the height of the civil rights movement was recast as the whitest man alive without a second thought in a time where people will, unironically, insist that Racism Is Over. Exactly. Montalban's casting wasn't particularly progressive (though a lot of other stuff in that original series was) but it was pretty much par for the course for what you'd expect of an American TV episode about six months before the Newark Riots, but Cumberbatch's is absolutely shockingly regressive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The end being a replay of the original is the point of the film. It's a lovely point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 14:20
|
|