Star Trek: Into Darkness - Page 10
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
Perscienter
957 Posts
On May 09 2013 00:27 -Archangel- wrote: Why do you think this is about Khan? This character is not Khan and this story is not about genetically modified humans. Unless the trailers are misleading. + Show Spoiler + Take a look at EnterpriseE1701E's post at page 9. It's a good guess. Coffins with windows? Soldiers jumping a few metres high? Genetically modified. | ||
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
On May 07 2013 05:40 EnterpriseE1701E wrote: Below are spoilers, and I'm 99% certain this is how it is going to go down. My chief contention is that the overwhelming majority of details about the movie are contained within the trailers or other, exceptionally short leaked clips. + Show Spoiler + If you take a look at the third English trailer, around the 0:40 second mark, you will see two figures walking out of a room which seems to be littered with coffins. This, I believe, is intentional on the part of whoever designed the trailer, but highly misleading. You will note prior to this scene, we saw Cumberbatch's character attack a number of what seems to be Starfleet officials in what looks like a meeting room. The train of thought is supposed to take us from attack -> coffins (and with one individual being buried with a starfleet flag on top, at the beginning of the trailer, this suggestion seems all the more likely). However, I want to argue that this is an incorrect interpretation. There are three big things which give that these tubes are not coffins. 1) There is no starfleet insignia, no starfleet emblem, and no starfleet flag on these "coffins." Instead, they are perfeclty non-descript-- something which seems highly unlikely, if we believe that the people killed were starfleet officials, and they were on Earth (no shortage of materials to make such a coffin). 2) These tubes have glass on top of them, such that you could see the people inside. We HAVE seen designs similar to this (I'm thinking of the TNG episode in which the crew goes into stasis to get around the lack of REM sleep in a given section of space). I would suggest these are similar to those sorts of instruments instead, such that we have a large quantity of people in cryogenic storage. 3)To back this up further, the glass seems frosted. Short and sweet. I hope it becomes obvious where this is going. In addition to the movie having an entire crew locked in cryogenic stasis, there are several other compelling facts which make the plot of this story very obvious. The next comes from from a more recent clip on youtube, no more than 1 minute in length. Cumberbatch's character says that there are "72" reasons why Kirk should look in his hold, or that Cumberbatch is right. Regardless of whatever inane dialogue these two are exchanging, the 72 is key here. After the Eugenics Wars in Star Trek, a number of augments were exiled into space on sleeper ships. One of these ships, the SS Botany Bay, was sent out with Khan and 84 other people aboard. After 12 of these capsules failed, he was left with 72 augments. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/SS_Botany_Bay Basically, it is gonna be Khan. Several other compelling points, and some other details which will be very interesting, but are more speculative: The first post links a JP video, which has a short clip, which reenacted the radiation scene from Wrath of Khan. It isn't clear whose hands these are, but I will suggest something about this later. I think it would be wildly amiss from Abram's stated goals to include a scene like this without it being Khan as the villian. Instead, he's repeatedly said he wants these ST movies to appeal to new fans and old. Several of the trailers show the Enterprise eating massive quantities of shit, with massive chunks ripped out of her engineering and saucer sections. Coupled with a short, 2 second clip which shows several crewmen getting sucked out of a breach at light speed, we know the Enterprise is gonna get wrecked. Furthermore, we have a good shot from above ofthe Enterprise, in which it has many hull breaches as well, hurtling towards a planet. Coupled with a large, federation sort of ship slamming into SanFran harbor (Home of Starfleet) (and taking out Alcatraz as well), I suspect that the Enterprise is going to get massively, completely owned. If you've watched the third and final trailer, it should be obvious who's going to do this-- a dreadnaught which looks oddly Federation in design (it has the classic saucer/engineering/nacelle set up that we see in almost every Federation vessel), firing on the Enterprise. My prediction is as follows: Khan has the dreadnaught, makes the Enterprise grab its ankles, and sends it hurtling towards Earth. Now, since a warp core breach on the surface of the planet, near SanFran would obliterate the city (not to mention the continent as a whole), I suspect that there will be a reenactment of the radiation scene from the end of the Wrath of Khan, in an attempt to make sure the antimatter doesn't detonate as the Enterprise is crashing. Somebody's gonna die, for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams reverses Spock dying, and instead lets Kirk, given that a theme of these trailers has been Kirk's arrogance in not having any of his crew die. Further predictions: either this person, or maybe Captain Pike will actually be the one in the coffin that we see at the start of the movie. I'd be shocked if they killed off one of the bridge crew, but we do see a funeral happening as the beginning-- a further prediction is that Pike dies in the attack. I have very little evidence beyond my Star Trek movie intuition, but Pike has been a surrogate father figure in both ST11 and from the trailers you've seen. Thoughts? bravo! i hope cumberbatch does justice to khan, hes probably the most capable actor in the movie anyway. | ||
Sermokala
United States13541 Posts
On May 09 2013 00:27 -Archangel- wrote: Why do you think this is about Khan? This character is not Khan and this story is not about genetically modified humans. Unless the trailers are misleading. + Show Spoiler + The story of khan is about Geneticaly modified humans. Khan left aboard his space ship in the alternate universe with a lot of genetically modified humans after the end of the eugenics wars were these same humans were tyrants over all the earth. The number of ones that survived supports the hints drooped about the coffin room. Its also 100% confirmed I feel that its about khan I just saw an espn comercial were they spoof spocs death scene just like what happened in khan (actually a lot different then the original movie but the same premise). | ||
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On May 09 2013 00:27 -Archangel- wrote: Why do you think this is about Khan? This character is not Khan and this story is not about genetically modified humans. Unless the trailers are misleading. Even if it's not exactly Khan Noonien Singh, it's clearly the same basic idea (which makes it even more half-assed. If you're going to write a rip-off, then write a rip-off). Let's run down the list: 1: Non-Starfleet badguy in command of a Federation ship? Check. 2: Fights and blows the shit out of Enterprise? Check. 3: Kirk has to fight from a disadvantaged position in a busted ship? Check. (My guess is that the Enterprise goes underwater at least somewhat willingly on Kirk's part) 4: Carol Marcus is involved? Check. 5: Death of an important character? Odds are good, given the coffins in the trailer and various shots that certainly look like teases to the famous scenes of WoK. The only substantive difference is that there's no specific animosity between Kirk and the badguy. Unless there is; they could certainly write such a thing into the story. But the absence of this makes the conflict less personal, and becomes a detriment to any sort of | ||
bode927
United States164 Posts
The film has great acting, great special effects, and it portrays the relationships between characters correctly. And NicholBolas and others, I apologize on behalf of J.J. Abrams for making Star Trek into something that you no longer enjoy. However, it should be noted that the rest of us do enjoy it. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On May 09 2013 01:32 bode927 wrote: It seems to me that the general public has received Star Trek 2009 quite well. (91% audience on RT with a 4.1/5 average rating, 8/10 on IMDB). It is only some of the old school trekkies who do not like the film because they are unwilling to deal with the fact that their beloved franchise has changed the way that it does things. The film has great acting, great special effects, and it portrays the relationships between characters correctly. And NicholBolas and others, I apologize on behalf of J.J. Abrams for making Star Trek into something that you no longer enjoy. However, it should be noted that the rest of us do enjoy it. The fact you use imdb or any of those others as a source of how good the movie was is also quite saddening. It means you don't understand the basics of how to tell the validity of your sources. FOX, Newscorp, etc love people like you because you'll buy anything and accept anything without doing any real thinking of your own. Its fine to be part of the "popularized media" crowd who love Justin Bieber/etc and harold "Twilight" as something that should be regarded with the likes of Shakespeare but don't sit there and try to chastize those who still hold to their older standards as "unappeasable" or like we're just to be thrown away. The concept would not have survived or thrived without us. Its the whole alienation of the core group to get the masses of mindless drones who don't think and will pay for anything because they have no standards thing all over again. Go ask any people who played Diablo, Final Fantasy, etc. Its happened to just about all of us "older groups". | ||
bode927
United States164 Posts
On May 09 2013 02:02 sCCrooked wrote: The fact you use imdb or any of those others as a source of how good the movie was is also quite saddening. It means you don't understand the basics of how to tell the validity of your sources. FOX, Newscorp, etc love people like you because you'll buy anything and accept anything without doing any real thinking of your own. Its fine to be part of the "popularized media" crowd who love Justin Bieber/etc and harold "Twilight" as something that should be regarded with the likes of Shakespeare but don't sit there and try to chastize those who still hold to their older standards as "unappeasable" or like we're just to be thrown away. The concept would not have survived or thrived without us. Its the whole alienation of the core group to get the masses of mindless drones who don't think and will pay for anything because they have no standards thing all over again. Go ask any people who played Diablo, Final Fantasy, etc. Its happened to just about all of us "older groups". Thank you for the condescending tone of your post. I was merely using RT and IMDB to show how the general public has received the movie, I was not using it to determine whether or not the movie was good. Also, I can do plenty of thinking on my own, thank you again for being condescending. I had never seen a Star Trek movie before going into Star Trek 2009, but I do like to think that I can tell a good film from a bad film. As a matter of fact I dislike Justin Beiber and Twilight, but I also dislike Shakespeare, admittedly not for the same reasons. What do you say to that? I happen to like Diablo 2 better than Diablo 3 and Final Fantasy 7 better than Final Fantasy 12. I just think that if people liek yourself had not seen the old Star Trek films before they went into ST2009, you would have liked it. Like I said, I still believe it to be a well made movie, unlike Twilight or Michael Bay's transformers. It just doesn't follow the same thought process as the old Trek films did because the new film was trying to appeal to a wider audience. I saw a quote from J.J. Abrams before ST2009 came out and he basically said: We're making this Star Trek movie not for Star Trek fans but for fans who love movies. And I'm fine with that approach. It might piss you off if you're an old school trekkie, but the rest of us don't really care. By the way, I know plenty of trekkies who love the ST2009 movie. Making money is the way of the world sir. The movie industry has become a multi-billion dollar business. When movies like Transformers 2 and Star Wars episodes 1-3 still make tons of money, we should be grateful that while movies like Star Trek 2009 are different, they are still of high quality. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On May 09 2013 02:17 bode927 wrote: Thank you for the condescending tone of your post. I was merely using RT and IMDB to show how the general public has received the movie, I was not using it to determine whether or not the movie was good. Also, I can do plenty of thinking on my own, thank you again for being condescending. I had never seen a Star Trek movie before going into Star Trek 2009, but I do like to think that I can tell a good film from a bad film. As a matter of fact I dislike Justin Beiber and Twilight, but I also dislike Shakespeare, admittedly not for the same reasons. What do you say to that? I happen to like Diablo 2 better than Diablo 3 and Final Fantasy 7 better than Final Fantasy 12. I just think that if people liek yourself had not seen the old Star Trek films before they went into ST2009, you would have liked it. Like I said, I still believe it to be a well made movie, unlike Twilight or Michael Bay's transformers. It just doesn't follow the same thought process as the old Trek films did because they were trying to appeal to a wider audience. Making money is the way of the world sir. The movie industry has become a multi-billion dollar business. When movies like Transformers 2 and Star Wars episodes 1-3 still make tons of money, we should be grateful that while movies like Star Trek 2009 are different, they are still of high quality. Your post basically proves my point. Words like "high quality" and "good" and "solid writing" do not apply to the vast majority of all media that has come out in the last few decades. The responses of what you like/dislike are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what I was talking about. Those were examples of other scenes that consider themselves "clashing" with the "old mentality" or the older generation and like rhetorical questions, don't warrant a response. My post was pointing out how the "new-agers" reason, how they think, how they check/if they even check their sources before formulating opinions and the incredibly low level of reading comprehension that applies more to youth today than ever before. There's nothing wrong with liking any of that stuff, nor should you feel compelled to respond to that part of the post since that would indicate you were incapable of recognizing the actual topic. What's wrong is that people are telling people who dislike it that they're just impossible to please or that we need to somehow get with the times. Movement towards the worship of money in all aspects of life didn't used to be viewed as a good thing by most people. Complete dominance of greed without accountability or responsibility is what we're really headed towards as we receive more and more horrible product and unfortunately the populations are being poisoned through medicine/food/water to be dumb enough to still receive them as if they were great works. That being said, go see both ST2009 and the rest of the movies but don't think for an instant that you understand what Star Trek stood for or what its core fanbase believes in. | ||
bode927
United States164 Posts
Also, the two highest grossing movies last year were the Avengers and the Dark Knight Rises. Those made tons of money, its true. But do you really think that they were not great works? If you do think that then I just have to say that I am probably done with this conversation since we seem to just be too far apart on what we think is good, not that that means either of us is right or wrong, just different. As a side note, I also like many movies that are old as shit, like Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Jaws, Star Wars 4-6, Wrath of Khan, Godfather 1-2, etc. So don't just dismiss me as a new ager that doesn't understand what makes the old stuff good. | ||
SushilS
2115 Posts
Calm your britches. Its a movie. There are more important issues in the real world. Get a perspective. I hate these guys who make Star Wars and Star Trek seem like Scientology Part 2. Keep your preferences but don't talk down to others who think differently. No, you are NOT better than them. | ||
Perscienter
957 Posts
On May 09 2013 02:17 bode927 wrote: Thank you for the condescending tone of your post. I was merely using RT and IMDB to show how the general public has received the movie, I was not using it to determine whether or not the movie was good. Also, I can do plenty of thinking on my own, thank you again for being condescending. I had never seen a Star Trek movie before going into Star Trek 2009, but I do like to think that I can tell a good film from a bad film. As a matter of fact I dislike Justin Beiber and Twilight, but I also dislike Shakespeare, admittedly not for the same reasons. What do you say to that? I happen to like Diablo 2 better than Diablo 3 and Final Fantasy 7 better than Final Fantasy 12. I just think that if people liek yourself had not seen the old Star Trek films before they went into ST2009, you would have liked it. Like I said, I still believe it to be a well made movie, unlike Twilight or Michael Bay's transformers. It just doesn't follow the same thought process as the old Trek films did because the new film was trying to appeal to a wider audience. I saw a quote from J.J. Abrams before ST2009 came out and he basically said: We're making this Star Trek movie not for Star Trek fans but for fans who love movies. And I'm fine with that approach. It might piss you off if you're an old school trekkie, but the rest of us don't really care. By the way, I know plenty of trekkies who love the ST2009 movie. Making money is the way of the world sir. The movie industry has become a multi-billion dollar business. When movies like Transformers 2 and Star Wars episodes 1-3 still make tons of money, we should be grateful that while movies like Star Trek 2009 are different, they are still of high quality. SCCrooked is right about IMDB. These big marketing sides are used as a tool to stress the positive reviews about films. IMDB is run by Amazon, guess for which purpose. It's not a charity. ;-) The average rating on IMDB is explained or rather not explained on this side: http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?ratingsexplanation Weighted Average Ratings IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it. The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average. I can translate it for you. 1. No arithmetic mean or median, but a weighted average to sort out undesirable opinions. 2. They don't even disclose the votes themselves, so the voting table might be wrong. The first page of the Star Trek reviews page draws a picture un-similar to the voting table of it. When I talk about it, I like to bring up Skyfall with its horrible plot holes as a recent example of manipulated reviews. I think the industry recently became really good at manipulating them. This table shows a 7.8 weighted average: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt The first page of the reviews features exclusively bad reviews (<6 stars). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/reviews?ref_=tt_urv I think that is proof enough that there is something very wrong about the measuring. On May 09 2013 02:42 bode927 wrote: At this point I dont think I want to know what Star Trek stood for or what its core fan base believes in. No offense, but the old Star Trek community seems rather closed off and elitist about their community and seem pretty unwilling to accept anything that does not adhere to their rigid guidelines. Also, the two highest grossing movies last year were the Avengers and the Dark Knight Rises. Those made tons of money, its true. But do you really think that they were not great works? If you do think that then I just have to say that I am probably done with this conversation since we seem to just be too far apart on what we think is good, not that that means either of us is right or wrong, just different. Personally, I'm bored by watching these crafted works with dozens of artists and they make millions of dollars but don't even write ten minutes of coherent story. It's just sad that I can probably write better dialogues than multi-million-dollar-writers. | ||
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
And I dont like it that they use the brand to make films that have nothing to do with it. It looks more and more like starwars, starting from the lazer effects, the interal ship designs up to the aliens and so on. The action scenes are simply unrealistic with people jumping around like jedi knights and what not ... It simply isn't star trek ... I do not know what it is... If it was a brand new science fiction brand that would not lean on star trek in any way, I would like it. The stories are not realy, deep there is no great moral or lesson to learn behind it there is nothing. Star Trek was also politcal here is nothing. What I probably dislike the most is that firework of senseless, colots and the action scenes that belong into a super hero or jedi movie. I'd rather like to see a well thought out story then a color explosion of action scenes with story fragments in between them loosly mashed together. In into the darkness I could always tell what was going to happen in the naxt 15-30 minutes so there was nothing left to watch but the action and the bad slap stick humour that hurt my heart. On a scale from 1-10 points, I'd give 4. | ||
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On May 09 2013 02:17 bode927 wrote: As a matter of fact I dislike Justin Beiber and Twilight, but I also dislike Shakespeare, admittedly not for the same reasons. What do you say to that? I happen to like Diablo 2 better than Diablo 3 and Final Fantasy 7 better than Final Fantasy 12. I just think that if people liek yourself had not seen the old Star Trek films before they went into ST2009, you would have liked it. Here's the difference between you and me. I don't ascribe your liking of these films to a mental illness. I don't say that the reason you don't like the film is because you're stupid or clinging to some old something. I don't propose any reason for your liking the film beyond you having different standards than I do. I extend to you the basic courtesy that your perspective and opinions exist and are yours. You do not extend that courtesy to me. As for your supposition, if ST2009 was called "Space Academy" or whatever and was about people and events that had no relationship to Star Trek, I guarantee you two things: 1) I would still not have liked it because it'd still be a crap movie. The vast majority of the reasons why I dislike the film have to do with the film as a film, not as a Star Trek movie. 2) It would have made less money. On May 09 2013 02:17 bode927 wrote: Like I said, I still believe it to be a well made movie, unlike Twilight or Michael Bay's transformers. It just doesn't follow the same thought process as the old Trek films did because the new film was trying to appeal to a wider audience. I saw a quote from J.J. Abrams before ST2009 came out and he basically said: We're making this Star Trek movie not for Star Trek fans but for fans who love movies. And there we have the real problem: the presupposition that these two things can't happen in the same movie. As though Star Trek never appealed "to a wider audience," that it was always some kind of cloistered nerd thing. For reference, Star Trek: The Next Generation, in its day, was the highest rated syndicated program in US television history. So don't act like Star Trek was some underground thing until Abrams came along and popularized it. It was a part of popular consciousness. It appealed "to a wider audience". Put it this way. When Nicholas Meyer was brought on board for Star Trek II, he wasn't a fan of the show. So he went and watched every TOS episode, so that he could understand what the show was about. He then went on to make a movie that appealed "to a wider audience" while still being Star Trek. In short, Abrams's comment is exactly what I would expect from a hack like him. It's nothing more than him admitting, "I'm too lazy to do both at the same time." I'm glad Peter Jackson didn't say that when he made the Lord of the Rings films. I'm glad Chris Nolan and Tim Burton didn't say that when they made Batman films. I could really keep going with that, but I think you get my point. Other adaptations manage to have wide appeal while still keeping the elements that made the original work. So why should we give this film a pass because of Abrams' hack-work? On May 09 2013 02:17 bode927 wrote:When movies like Transformers 2 and Star Wars episodes 1-3 still make tons of money, we should be grateful that while movies like Star Trek 2009 are different, they are still of high quality. No, I'm not grateful. Why should I be? When we've got Chris Nolan and Joss Whedon putting in work producing exceptional films, why should I accept Abrams' mere competence? Yeah, he's not Bay or Lucas. But that's a low fucking bar to get over. What the hell is wrong with having standards? On May 09 2013 02:42 bode927 wrote: At this point I dont think I want to know what Star Trek stood for or what its core fan base believes in. No offense, but the old Star Trek community seems rather closed off and elitist about their community and seem pretty unwilling to accept anything that does not adhere to their rigid guidelines. I just want to remind you that the "rigid guidelines" in question are "good, well-written story". Why is that too much to ask from a film? On May 09 2013 02:42 bode927 wrote: Also, the two highest grossing movies last year were the Avengers and the Dark Knight Rises. Those made tons of money, its true. But do you really think that they were not great works? If you do think that then I just have to say that I am probably done with this conversation since we seem to just be too far apart on what we think is good, not that that means either of us is right or wrong, just different. I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with that. Yes, high grossing movies can be good. That doesn't mean that high grossing movies are good, only that they can be. The point is that you can't say "it made money" and assume that means "it's good". On May 09 2013 08:45 Holy_AT wrote: It simply isn't star trek anymore. And I dont like it that they use the brand to make films that have nothing to do with it. It looks more and more like starwars, starting from the lazer effects, the interal ship designs up to the aliens and so on. The action scenes are simply unrealistic with people jumping around like jedi knights and what not ... ... What movie were you watching? People "jumping around like jedi knights"? Where? Those were people falling. You know, like with gravity. The action scenes were realistic within the context of the story. Any "unrealistic" elements were due to aliens, either the random monster encounter (seriously, was there a point to that besides adding another random action beat between talky segments?) or the Romulans with previously-established several times human strength and endurance. That being previously-established in the Star Trek universe. So I'm not really sure where you're getting this from. | ||
bode927
United States164 Posts
Here's the difference between you and me. I don't ascribe your liking of these films to a mental illness. I don't say that the reason you don't like the film is because you're stupid or clinging to some old something. I don't propose any reason for your liking the film beyond you having different standards than I do. I extend to you the basic courtesy that your perspective and opinions exist and are yours. You do not extend that courtesy to me. As for your supposition, if ST2009 was called "Space Academy" or whatever and was about people and events that had no relationship to Star Trek, I guarantee you two things: 1) I would still not have liked it because it'd still be a crap movie. The vast majority of the reasons why I dislike the film have to do with the film as a film, not as a Star Trek movie. 2) It would have made less money. I am sorry if I appear disrespectful to you. That isn't my intention. I just think that you have a bias when it comes to Star Trek films. I have my own bias too. We all do. We're human after all. I'll give you a few short reasons why I liked the film: -the interaction and dialogue between characters felt to me like Star Trek. I at least felt like they captured the essence of these characters and portrayed them well on screen. Granted, I haven't been a Star Trek fan except for about the last 3.5 years. -Sci-Fi is my favorite genre, I tend to love sci-fi movies -Scenes like the beginning sequence where kirk is being born and his father sacrifices himself to save his crew are extremely emotional and powerful to me. -I thought the score was good, and it was fun to see the Star Trek crew learn who they are and work as a team -The special effects were good If you disagree with those points then I'm sorry, but we just have different taste in what we want out of a movie. I agree with your second point that if it was not called "Star Trek" it would have made less money. And there we have the real problem: the presupposition that these two things can't happen in the same movie. As though Star Trek never appealed "to a wider audience," that it was always some kind of cloistered nerd thing. For reference, Star Trek: The Next Generation, in its day, was the highest rated syndicated program in US television history. So don't act like Star Trek was some underground thing until Abrams came along and popularized it. It was a part of popular consciousness. It appealed "to a wider audience". Put it this way. When Nicholas Meyer was brought on board for Star Trek II, he wasn't a fan of the show. So he went and watched every TOS episode, so that he could understand what the show was about. He then went on to make a movie that appealed "to a wider audience" while still being Star Trek. In short, Abrams's comment is exactly what I would expect from a hack like him. It's nothing more than him admitting, "I'm too lazy to do both at the same time." I'm glad Peter Jackson didn't say that when he made the Lord of the Rings films. I'm glad Chris Nolan and Tim Burton didn't say that when they made Batman films. I could really keep going with that, but I think you get my point. Other adaptations manage to have wide appeal while still keeping the elements that made the original work. So why should we give this film a pass because of Abrams' hack-work? It has been a long time since Star Trek was a popular TV show. Heck, in 2009, it had been a long time since the Star Trek franchise had a decent film too. I agree that Star Trek used to be popular, but when the 2009 film came out, the only people that still loved it were the trekkies. It's audience had shrunk over the years. J.J. Abrams knew he needed to attract new, young viewers. I think that the ST2009 paid plenty of attention to the old Star Trek films. Abrams is obviously fond of Wrath of Khan. One example is bringing up the Kobiyashi Muru test. I am not sure if I spelled that right but as you know, I'm not an old school trekkie and I'm not extremely knowledgeable about these things. I thought the addition of Leonard Nimoy was a nice touch too. I thought that really helped bridge the gap between the new and the old films. As far as the Abrams quote, he probably knew that he didn't have to try too hard to get the old Star Trek fans to come and see the film, he knew they would watch it anyway. Even those who dislike the film seem to have seen it anyway. He knew that in order to be able to make more Star Trek films, this film would need to make money in order for the next one to be funded. For reasons that I've stated in this post and in other posts, I still maintain that ST2009 was still a high quality film, so I don't feel bad that they have tried and succeeded at making it a success in the box office. Also, I think it would help me if you actually defined what it is that Star Trek should be, because I honestly have no idea what you're thinking on that. Whatever it is seems to be pretty elusive and hard to identify. No, I'm not grateful. Why should I be? When we've got Chris Nolan and Joss Whedon putting in work producing exceptional films, why should I accept Abrams' mere competence? Yeah, he's not Bay or Lucas. But that's a low fucking bar to get over. What the hell is wrong with having standards? I have standards too. I hated films like Green Lantern, X-men Origins Wolverine, Michael Bay's Transformers, every Twilight movie, Harry Potter movies 1, 2, and 4, etc. There's a long list of movies that don't meet my standards, but ST2009 exceeds my expectations. Perhaps your standards for ST2009 are exceptionally high because of the Star Trek tag on the title? I just want to remind you that the "rigid guidelines" in question are "good, well-written story". Why is that too much to ask from a film? I don't think that it is too much to ask for a film. I just think that ST2009 had a good, well-written story. I guess I am having trouble identifying what you consider to be a well written story. I remember a post that you made in this thread a few weeks ago talking about a theme in Wrath of Khan, how Kirk had struggled with the fact that he was too old or something. Could you kindly explain that again? I watched Wrath of Khan a few weeks ago, and vaguely recall something about his age in his discussion with McCoy, but he seemed to get over that fairly quickly when a real mission presented itself while he was inspecting the Enterprise. I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with that. Yes, high grossing movies can be good. That doesn't mean that high grossing movies are good, only that they can be. The point is that you can't say "it made money" and assume that means "it's good". I was responding to the post before mine talking about greed and money without accountability or responsibility. I was pointing out the 2 highest grossing films of last year and agreeing that yes these filmmakers are in fact greedy, but that doesn't mean that the films they make are not good. And yes, I agree, that making money doesn't make the films good. Bay's Transformers and Twilight are prime examples of that. As for your comments in response to Holy_AT, finally we agree on something! | ||
RQShatter
United States459 Posts
| ||
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
On May 09 2013 14:13 RQShatter wrote: I hope this movie is as good as star trek episode 1: The phantom menace -- I really enjoyed that movie. I totally agree with you. | ||
Erasme
Bahamas15893 Posts
On May 09 2013 14:13 RQShatter wrote: I hope this movie is as good as star trek episode 1: The phantom menace -- I really enjoyed that movie. Goddamn trekkies, the episode 4-5-6 are way better | ||
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On May 09 2013 14:00 bode927 wrote: It has been a long time since Star Trek was a popular TV show. Heck, in 2009, it had been a long time since the Star Trek franchise had a decent film too. I agree that Star Trek used to be popular, but when the 2009 film came out, the only people that still loved it were the trekkies. It's audience had shrunk over the years. J.J. Abrams knew he needed to attract new, young viewers. I think that the ST2009 paid plenty of attention to the old Star Trek films. Abrams is obviously fond of Wrath of Khan. One example is bringing up the Kobiyashi Muru test. I am not sure if I spelled that right but as you know, I'm not an old school trekkie and I'm not extremely knowledgeable about these things. I thought the addition of Leonard Nimoy was a nice touch too. I thought that really helped bridge the gap between the new and the old films. It's important to note the difference between the form and the function. I care about function, not form. It's what allows me to appreciate Tim Burton's Batman right along side Comic Batman, Batman: TAS, or Nolanverse Batman. It's what would let me enjoy SW: Episode 7 if it's a good film, even if it runs roughshod all over SW:EU canon that I enjoy. What I care about is not what something looks like. What I care about is how you use it. Referencing the Kobayashi Maru test buys you nothing from me. That's form; that's "a thing that happened in-universe". I don't care about that sort of thing. Not that much. What I care about is what you do with it. In Wrath of Khan, it was used as part of some thematic progression within the movie. It's repeatedly referenced in ways both obvious and subtle. From Kirk's absolutely epic "I don't like to lose," to Spock eventually facing his Kobayashi Maru, it's a repeated motif and theme of the film: the idea of the no-win scenario. And admittedly, it is used in ST2009 as part of the closest thing to thematic progression that that film gets. But the problem is that it's not complete, nor is it well used. Yes, Nero presents a variation of the no-win scenario. And yes, Kirk is able to trick his way around it. But it's just Kirk. Neither Spock nor anyone else is involved with that idea, so it doesn't have much thematic importance. Furthermore, Kirk only really is able to win by accident, not because of his guile. He wins because he just so happened to run into Future-Spock with the magical trans-warp beaming equation. Because without that, he'd have been screwed. Also, it's not well-used because ST2009 suggests something quite the opposite of WoK. WoK presupposes that no-win scenarios exist. That they're going to happen, so you'd better be ready for them. Kirk didn't believe in them, and while that world-view has helped him win many encounters, it proves useless to him when Spock dies. In short, the theme was humbling for Kirk in WoK. Not in ST2009. There, the idea is that you can beat the no-win scenario, always. There's no such thing as a no-win scenario in ST2009. In that movie, as long as you believe you can do it, you can. It's a very unrealistic, idealistic notion, one that I personally find unpalatable. So no, merely referencing the Kobayashi Maru or putting Leonard Nimoy in the film gets you nothing from me. It's what you do with these elements that I care about. And they just didn't use them very well. Nimoy infodumps BS for a bit, and spouts famous WoK quotes, but little more than that. On May 09 2013 14:00 bode927 wrote: I don't think that it is too much to ask for a film. I just think that ST2009 had a good, well-written story. I guess I am having trouble identifying what you consider to be a well written story. I'd say the easiest way to talk about that is to go over what I would consider to be "poorly written". I'm going to give you an example of just one scene in Star Trek 2009 that makes absolutely no sense if you stop to think about what's going on. I also want you to understand that I could pick from many other scenes that also make no sense, so it's not like this is at all isolated. The scene wherein Kirk assumes command. Not the entire sequence of Kirk insulting Spock, being assaulted, and Spock leaving. Just the ~30 seconds of film after Spock leaves the bridge. Spock's gone, so there's no captain. Then Sulu informs the bridge that Kirk is still technically First Officer. Kirk sits down, declaring that he's in command now. Bones is incredulous, but everyone else just accepts it. Kirk then addresses the crew on the ship-wide speakers, telling them that they're going after the Nerada. Just that much of the scene. I have one very simple question about this scene: Why in God's name would anyone on the bridge follow James Tiberius Kirk in this scenario? Think about this scene from the perspective of Chekov. This is what the film tells us that Chekov knows about Kirk: Kirk is not a Starfleet officer. He is a cadet; he has not graduated Starfleet Academy. He did come to the bridge and warn them about some danger. After which time, he led an away mission where one of his men was killed (to be fair, this was through the stupidity of the man in question, not Kirk. But Chekov doesn't know that). Kirk and Sulu are saved due to Chekov being able to do the Transporter Chief's job better than the transporter chief(). Once back on the ship, Kirk is repeatedly insubordinate towards his commanding officer, thus undermining the authority of the Captain. Kirk demands that they undertake a suicide mission by following the Nerada (notable in that Kirk has not yet formulated a plan to stop the Nerada) instead of joining up with the rest of the fleet. When Captain Spock has him removed from the bridge, Kirk fights with the security officers. This attempted mutiny is answered by Captain Spock removing Kirk from the ship. A few hours later, Kirk then... appears on the ship. Somehow. Once apprehended with a confederate, Kirk is dragged to the bridge by security. Kirk then refuses to explain how he returned to the ship. Instead, Kirk starts insulting the Captain, to the point where the Captain has a psychological break and attempts to murder him on the bridge. Captain Spock then relieves himself of command, due to the aforementioned psychological break. A psychological break that Kirk himself caused. And then Kirk declares himself Captain. And Captain Kirk then declares that he's going to get them all killed by taking on a ship they don't have a chance of defeating. Explain to me why Chekov would not pull a phaser and tell Kirk to get his 3rd-year-cadet ass out of that chair. He's not first officer anymore. When you get thrown off the ship for rank insubordination, conduct unbecoming, and attempted mutiny, you forfeit your rank. Kirk has no legal standing to sit in that chair. Furthermore, there's no reason for Chekov to trust him with his own life or the lives of the crew. Especially when he simply decides, on his own, to undertake his suicidal plan to go attack the Nerada. Explain to me why the security officers who had just taken Kirk into custody do not pull a phaser on him. Explain why nobody at all protests this. Explain how the random members of the crew accept this. Remember, all they know is that the actual captain "relinquished command," and they're being told this by the new captain. A new guy who you've never heard of before. That sounds a hell of a lot like a successful mutiny, not an orderly changeover of power. Somebody ought to be asking some questions here. Even if everyone thought that Spock was wrong to go to Starfleet, that they should take the chance on going after the Nerada, that they were all ready to mutiny against Spock 5 seconds before Kirk showed up... why would they trust Kirk to be able to lead them? He hasn't proven himself to them by this point. He's a guy who tried to attack the Captain and was thrown off the ship. In short, if you think of any of these characters as people rather than mere pawns of the plot, the entire scene breaks down. It simply cannot happen this way; human beings would not behave like this given the circumstances. This would be the fastest mutiny in the history of Starfleet. There is no reason stated as to why any of these characters would ever go along with this (except maybe Sulu, but that's only because Kirk jumped after him in an attempt to save him). This is a common sign of hackwork: when characters behave nonsensically because they have to in order for the plot to work. Well-written stories can still have plot holes, certainly. But well-written stories do not have gaping plot holes like that. Where even the slightest bit of thought makes the whole thing make no sense. Where you realize that characters aren't behaving according to their own reason, but according to the needs of the script. I picked this scene because it's a major scene in the work. This is supposed to be the scene wherein the crew comes together, with Kirk in command, as we have known them through TOS. It is an absolutely critical scene to the film. But because it's nonsensical from a character motivation perspective, the scene collapses in on itself. A vital scene flat out does not work. And I remind you: this kind of thing is everywhere in ST2009. I could have asked about why Kirk&Spock beam over alone to the Nerada rather than sending a constant stream of Red Shirts to take the place. Or why Pike makes Kirk First Officer to begin with. Or any number of other important questions that the poorly-written plot constantly dares the audience to ask. "Well-written" works would be not having things like that in it. Or if it has them, they shouldn't be in critical scenes like this. On May 09 2013 14:00 bode927 wrote: I remember a post that you made in this thread a few weeks ago talking about a theme in Wrath of Khan, how Kirk had struggled with the fact that he was too old or something. Could you kindly explain that again? I watched Wrath of Khan a few weeks ago, and vaguely recall something about his age in his discussion with McCoy, but he seemed to get over that fairly quickly when a real mission presented itself while he was inspecting the Enterprise. Perhaps you should watch the movie again. There's the birthday party scene. There's the line Kirk says about the cadets: "Galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young, Doctor." That line is what really sets up the theme: Kirk thinks he's too old to effectively command. This continues in the Kirk&Spock scene, where Kirk keeps telling Spock to take command of the ship, while Spock refuses. It's an undercurrent, but it's still there. The question remains: does Kirk still have what it takes? Kirk's actions then suggest that maybe he doesn't. His next major decision is an epic failure that even a lieutenant told him to avoid, and he only manages to survive only by pulling hax: "I did nothing! Except get caught with my britches down. I must be going senile." The senility part is what brings us back to the question of age. The next age reference comes when he's been left by Khan on the asteroid. "There's a man out there I haven't seen in fifteen years who's trying to kill me. You show me a son that'd be happy to help. My son... my life that could have been... and wasn't. How do I feel? Old... worn out." Then, we enter the Garden of Eden. Here, Kirk picks an apple and eats of it. Which "coincides" with him revealing his ultimate plan (unlike ST2009, where him eating an apple "coincides" with jack squat). Thus, Kirk has been rejuvenated, restoring faith in his ability to command. The final age reference of course comes at the end, when Kirk says that he feels young. Thus showing that, while he may not be what he was, he still has what it takes to command. That's fully developed thematic progression: beginning to end. | ||
Nekovivie
United Kingdom2599 Posts
| ||
| ||