|
Star Trek II 2: Wrath of Wrath of Khan
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
lizardman posted:^Nice of you to articulate your thoughts, ColonelPanic, just watch out because SMG is gonna come in here and tell you "of course it's being disrespectful to Star Trek and its fans, because they deserve to be disrespected they suck and that's why this movie's good" and when he doesn't get an overly defensive response from a Trek fan he will continue trying to bait them with various "This is the only good Star Trek film" comments at a high frequency even though no one bites. WoooooOOOOOOOOoooooo, SMG is coooomiiiing for yoooouuuu! Watch out for his asseeeertively-phraaaaaased opinioooooons!
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Pretty sure he means that the film treats Star Trek chiefly as a sensory space/setting in which certain narratives can thrive, rather than as a rigid world to be documented and all its elements measured against established canon. Tying into the new film, this is why it shouldn't be tripping up anyone's canon alarm that the new Khan doesn't look anything like the old Khan; that's misplacing priorities. The whitewashing is problematic as a social aspect of the current Hollywood system, but not as a contradiction of Star Trek Facts. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 10:58 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
BrandonGK posted:My point is it doesn't matter who they got to play Kahn or what his ethnicity is. There'd be nerd rage in any event. Nerd rage is when someone says "Khan isn't supposed to be white because of CANON". The grievance here is different. Non-white actors are heavily underrepresented in Hollywood films, and this is yet another opportunity to cast one in a major role being thrown away.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
GORDON posted:Rational people will know to avoid the "racism" thread, and the rest of us can discuss fun movies without the guilty "white people suck" undertones. Ahahaha, if you honestly think there's any "white people suck" undertones in this thread, you do not get to call yourself rational.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Clearly the correct answer is Danny Pudi.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Star Trek In2 Darkness
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
To the trailer's detriment, it attempts to imitate the Avengers trailer extremely closely.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:That's not shaped like the Enterprise at all. It looks more like a shuttle-craft or a science ship or something. I don't really see how you can make out the "17" either. I think the shape is pretty distinct in motion, and it's kind of insane to claim that could possibly say anything other than NCC-17.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Aside from being faintly visible, is there some other significant Star Trek NCC ship they're going to tease in their Star Trek teaser trailer?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
I feel this best represents the contrast between these two competing notions of Star Trek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnPIPOaRUFg
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:I think it's far more likely a suit will look at the most successful shows on TV and ask for a version of one to be set in space. House MD in space. It's essentially the same thing, but all the diseases are bizarre made-up alien nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
I know it's important to establish a firm sense of what's possible and avoid making your audience take too many leaps of faith in too many directions, but "A spaceship can't go in water!" is a strange thing to point to as being in any way egregious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
The entire premise of the first film was an elaborate way of establishing "things are allowed to be different now" in a manner acceptable to even the most canon-anal fans, and yet the dance continues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
The image of the ship going underwater has visual/conceptual value that outweighs the number of shits anyone in the world gives about its plausibility in a loving Star Trek movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
This movie is so blue/orange, especially with all the mauve undertones, bright white highlights, bold red accents, and blocks of murky yellow. And did you see that crimson forest in the 10 minute preview? Orange as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Everything from red to gold counts as "orange" for the purpose of the complaint, and everything from olive to navy counts as "blue". If a shot uses significant colour treatment, has warm/cool contrast, and does not contain purple or lime green, it's automatically blue/orange loving us again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
We were denied a riveting sequence of Scotty being sucked in a straight line down a hallway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
I think Shatner was miffed at not even getting a torch-passing cameo while Nimoy got a major role.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:As long as neither Abrams himself or his talentless toadie Lindelhof are allowed anywhere near the writing process, maybe there's a chance for goodness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:There is an in universe explanation for this. And it's an after-the-fact canon patch-up that's still more far-fetched than an engine room looking like a brewery. The only important question is "What makes for effective scenes and stories?" Spock's character arc in Star Trek '09 is an excellent reason for Vulcans, humans, and other species to look similar and be capable of producing offspring. It's a far better justification than some terrible TNG episode designed to calm the whining of obsessives.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
It's a minute long.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Is it canon that Kirk was always a fan of the Beastie Boys, or is that only an element of the new timeline? Also, are the Star Trek references in Beastie Boys songs replaced with references to some other show? If so, what show?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
The Shatner really comes out when he's irritated, like when he snaps "STOP IT" while Bones is injecting him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
I like how the usual stuffy federation council meeting has been supplanted by a Dr. Strangelove homage.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Based on the teaser scene that was shown in theatres, I think there'll be two separate scenes involving ships and water; a scene on the alien planet where they're hiding the Enterprise in the ocean and will have to emerge, and a scene where a ship (which may or may not be the Enterprise) crashes into a body of water on Earth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
Yeah, that could be planetary gravity. Or the artificial gravity calibration could be going wonky. The point is, you get to watch guys running on walls without any of that parkour poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
I'd say that's an inventively stupid theory, but it's not really even inventive. It's just "I want this other Star Trek thing I like to be part of the movie". I think it'd be really weak-sauce for these movies to have nothing but angry guys from the future as villains.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Mirror universe I hope every movie in this series has a conversation wherein Uhura exclaims "an alternate reality!" as soon as the crew figure out what's going on. Shot as close to identically as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
The new film series takes place entirely inside the virtual universe created for Moriarty in that TNG episode. The fabric of this universe has become increasingly warped by Moriarty's interaction with it, with Cumberbatch manifesting as his twisted perception of Picard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Please consider my proposal for the next Star Trek villain: A good-natured human with a happy life, who takes no issue with the Federation or anyone on the Enterprise, and has no significantly threatening weapons or spaceships.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Hahahaha, that ending sounds like it owns.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:It doesn't sound like a JJ movie, it sounds like a Damon Lindelof movie. Lindelof is awesome because he writes great endings that piss off literalists and pedants.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Like the first film and Prometheus, it looks like Into Darkness will have a lot of elements that will be latched onto and cited as flaws ad nauseum by nerds without any kind of exploration of whether/why they're a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
The only real complaint I have about Star Trek '09 is that the musical score is a little too dependent on a single theme. It's a decent theme, but it's used in too many different contexts without enough variation. Giacchino's done better. That's pretty much it, though!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Non-whiny non-pedantic nerds are exempt from my contempt.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
I had not considered the inherent hypocrisy of criticizing posts about a thing when I have also posted about that thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
What is the red goo?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Maybe we are lucky and Khan's blood is basically like the pink slime from Ghostbusters 2. It makes Kirk do funny dances with the right music. Or it means that Khan's spirit is in Kirk and he's now more badass Kirk and at some point it'll turn into Metal Gear Solid and the next movie is going to be by Hideo Kojima. In which case, loving AWESOME. Yes! That's what I'm talking about! I guess I like the ending because there's a weirdness to it, and weird is high-risk high-reward. I'm an optimist when it comes to taking the story in bizarre directions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Khan is a genetic superman, not a minor deity. Functionally, thematically, and symbolically, there's no difference.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 22:02
|
|