Personally I found it more enjoyable and fun to watch.
Star Trek: Into Darkness - Page 24
Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Fulla
United Kingdom519 Posts
Personally I found it more enjoyable and fun to watch. | ||
Zeon0
Austria2995 Posts
nonetheless, I enjoyed it. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On June 05 2013 01:53 Hryul wrote: i'm going to have dinner but please elaborate in detail what you think is this big glaring plothole that your years of experience in the movie industry showed you? Especially what should Carol Marcus be/not be and how is it a problem with the newly created timeline? Same for Khan. I'm just asking this for those of us, like me, don't have this in detail experience in the movie industry and thus a viewing standard like flat-earth-theorists. Basically all the major complaints stem from either technological inconsistencies or from problems with the timeline change. Biggest ones include: -Transwarp Beaming: The whole point of the transporter technology in Star Trek is that it has a finite range and beaming over is a very complicated process that simply won't work if you have too much motion or aren't close enough to ensure proper re-materialization at your destination. If a transporter is fail-proof and has no range, why even bother with Starships? We'd essentially have Stargate. -The Marcus Family: Little to nothing is known about anyone other than Carol Marcus in the original storyline. The problem is according to the new storyline, her father is a very prominent figure in Section 31 (a super-secret society much like the KGB were) and in starfleet. In the old storyline, he's so insignificant that most hardcore trekkies believe he wasn't even in starfleet. Also given his age, he has lived most of his life long before the temporal event occurred and so these huge changes to what used to be an insignificant character seem unnecessary. Carol was supposed to be a sort of "sweet farm-raised girl who turned out to be a genius with great vision". She was the gem of her family. Now we're supposed to believe there's suddenly a whole family involvement even though those sorts of decisions would've been made decades before the Romulan time event occurred. The whole point of Carol Marcus was not just a love interest for Kirk, but also to portray Einstein's struggle with the utilization of the atom bomb technology that he helped create for a good portion of his live. This was a very deep meaning to Carol's character and now that she's basically a female Tony Stark with even less memorable characteristics other than being just a girl for Kirk to flirt with, most of the community was not pleased. Smaller than that, its also strange Carol is suddenly British-accented as well... just doesn't make any sense. -Khan: Khan was created during the Eugenics War period in the late 20th century and ruled over almost a quarter of all of Earth (Asia and Middle Eastern regions to be more specific). He was a bloody murder who caused the war the killed over 30 million people and almost plunged humanity into a 2nd Dark Age. After being defeated, he and his people decided to take off from Earth in sleeper ships to find new worlds to rule and new life to conquer. Given that he has already had his entire life, you have to wonder why his ethnicity suddenly changed from a darker-skinned Asian-descendent with a hispanic accent to a british-accented caucasian. The other huge problem is that he seems to have turned into some action-packet berserker like X-Men's "Juggernaut" instead of the super-intelligent warlord that played the entire world for saps and very nearly won. Khan was supposed to be Hitler's story on steroids and that is not what we got. Far more story is necessary for such a deep character to be properly shown. Its probably not even possible to do it within the length of 1 single film. This whole lifetime happened hundreds of years before the temporal event, it makes no sense. For those of you who don't know the production side of this film (as I was part of the crew), we very nearly had Benicio Del Torro for the role of Khan but he turned away at the last second for some other drama movie. Many people think he would've been a far more believable Khan. -Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history. ------------------------------------------------------------ There are other smaller gripes that are more actor-related or writing-related similar to the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan which I didn't find particularly problematic but when he didn't have the proper character shown on screen (maybe directed to do so, maybe not his fault), that's where I drew a line. The whole point of an actor is to emulate accents, be put in tons of make-up and carefully-designed costumes so that you play your part. A very clear Khan role was already written in the history of the 20th century in both timelines which was not adhered to. Lets go into the others though: -McCoy and Chekov (and to a lesser extent, Scotty and Sulu): They were a major portion of many plots and were a core dynamic within the bridge crew of the Enterprise and Enterprise-A. Seeing these 2 beloved characters reduced to a quick line taken directly from "most memorable quotes" from their TV show characters on IMDB or something really irked a lot of people. In this storyline, the familiar head officers seem like they wouldn't even speak to each other if they weren't assigned by starfleet to that ship. There's almost no synergy between them that existed and that was important if you wanted to understand how close these people were. -Writing: The writing is pretty bad. They're trying to rush a lot of things that need to be drawn out and they're costing themselves in the process. For one thing space travel is not instant. In all other Star Trek TV shows and movies, there is considerable emphasis on the time spent in transit. Help is not usually that close, its a few days or even weeks away in some cases. Communications only have finite ranges and transporters and sensors have even smaller ranges. Slowing it down like that and emphasizing the reality of being in space and not zooming around across the galaxy within minutes allows you to insert scenes that develop the characters more. For example, they're trying to shove this whole Uhura and Spock romance down our throats and most people aren't buying it. The Uhura and Spock thing worked in the TV shows and later in the movies because it was set up over 80 episodes and 8+ movies! You can't throw stuff like that into a storyline that's only existed for 2 movies. A smart writer would set this sort of thing up in these films so you're already quite familiar with it when they finally do start adding those scenes in. -Fanwank: There's too much homage in the film and it actually chokes it in my opinion. I already mentioned that most of the beloved bridge crew are insignificant now and are reduced to next to no scenes and lines that are only single quips taken directly from nostalgic quotes. The "KHAAAAN" scream was amongst those things that make us fans facepalm so hard in this one. Its so obvious you want to include the popular meme that TWOK's "KHAAN" scream from Kirk became, but then they threw it in with a corny "JUST KIDDING HE'S OK" plot point to make things worse! The other obvious pander was when "John Harrison" became Khan. He didn't have to be Khan, he could've been anyone! Its your "new timeline" right? So why Khan? It feels like they were trying to pander so much to memorable lines and scenes that they ended up creating nothing but a big jumbled mess. ------------------------------------------------------------ As much as I wrote here, this barely scratches the surface. If you follow or know of any of the major Trek communities, you'd see that this movie was not received very well by a vast majority of people. Most found it the same as I did; entertaining but nothing special to rave about. It was basically just an action-packed special effects show as we expected. Needless to say, the community as a whole is rather glad to be rid of Abrahms to Star Wars and already the facebook pages, email accounts etc of Jonathan Frakes and the casts/writers of the TV shows are being blown up with requests for them to take over again. Once again I'll state that you're free to like whatever you want and yes I realize this is griping about a movie which is just silly, but I've felt like the quality of things have been slipping quickly lately and I'm starting to get ticked at the lack of originality, talent, storytelling and Big Money basically ruining things as of late in the entertainment industry. Here in LA, most all actors, musicians or production crew will tell you that these sentiments are widespread throughout the cinema-creating community and only the top guys with all the money and influence seem to only want to figure out how they can make the cheapest product with decreasing regard for standards to make the biggest bucks. Its very unfortunate, but that's how things are here in Hollywood. ----------------------------------------------------------- TL;DR you dont have to be a hardcore fan to realize its labeld Star Trek, but there is hardly any Star Trek in there nonetheless, I enjoyed it. ^ this | ||
Redox
Germany24792 Posts
People that call these new films "cheap" or "bad" or whatever are just mad that the films deviate from the old style. But its not objcetive at all. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On June 05 2013 03:00 Redox wrote: These last 2 films were so much better than the Frakes stuff. People that call these new films "cheap" or "bad" or whatever are just mad that the films deviate from the old style. But its not objcetive at all. I find your lack of content in your explanation incredibly ironic considering you're spouting blanket statements that anyone could prove wrong with a simple google search and 5 minutes of reading. Your explanation is not objective, ours are. Your explanation of the critics calling it "cheap" or "bad" because they're "just mad" is literally nothing. You've said nothing more than "umadbro" and tried to pass it off as a legitimate explanation. Congratz on being low-brow. | ||
Calliopee
Denmark151 Posts
On June 05 2013 03:05 sCCrooked wrote: I find your lack of content in your explanation incredibly ironic considering you're spouting blanket statements that anyone could prove wrong with a simple google search and 5 minutes of reading. Your explanation is not objective, ours are. Your explanation of the critics calling it "cheap" or "bad" because they're "just mad" is literally nothing. You've said nothing more than "umadbro" and tried to pass it off as a legitimate explanation. Congratz on being low-brow. My sentiments exactly. I'm not big on Star Trek, was too young to really get into the series but did play the mmo quite extensively so have a general idea about the universe etc. I saw the film yesterday and yes I was pleasantly entertained, it's by no means a bad movie. The action is good, I had a fair few giggles - even caught a few references (the whole redshirt theme) and thought the plot was quite alright. Having read your in-depth comments I can definatly see why more serious fans of the franchise are displeased. My biggest criticism or wonder was, what was the whole point of letting the giant battlecruiser crash towards the end? It seems that the amount of people killed purely by the havoc and destruction that crash caused outweighs whatever lives was saved by initially taking over the ship? Edit: + Show Spoiler + Also it really annoys me that Kirk wakes up after 2 weeks in coma newly shaved and with perfect hair - seriously Hollywood get over yourself! | ||
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
Why did the klingons change? Because it's what modern-day fans want to see from a Klingon because the old ones looked nothing like another species. You would've been happier if they looked like shit? Guess we'd better make the enterprise look ultra-campy and remove all the good special effects while we're at it because they're not up to traditional specs. The amount of information on Khan originally wasn't just gathered by the Star Trek community just from one movie, as he is mentioned in other episodes of the series and novels as well. Khan's ethnicity, as a complaint, is even less interesting than the Klingon's appearance. I'm surprised you didn't mention a lack of fake-chest being shown. My problem with these complaints (all of them sans Transwarp beaming) is that it's simply anger that the franchise has been rebooted. You want this movie to have never been made. You never wanted a reboot in this manner and never wanted to see the old characters made young again. It's like being a vegetarian and complaining about eating at a steak house. You knew going into it there was no way you were going to like it because the premise alone was something you couldn't get behind. Don't get me wrong, I would've preferred a new TV series about whatever and if it was good eventually movies. That doesn't seem to be in the pipeline as there were licensing issues and shit like that. Given what Abrams had to work with, I think he's done a good job. He cant just randomly create an entirely new crew or new quadrant to explore because there'd be no connection with anything happening on screen with the audience. So he's done what he could with an IP and attempted to make it something he could work with. Under the circumstances (which are shitty and many), I think he has done a good job. | ||
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 05 2013 03:27 Calliopee wrote: My sentiments exactly. I'm not big on Star Trek, was too young to really get into the series but did play the mmo quite extensively so have a general idea about the universe etc. I saw the film yesterday and yes I was pleasantly entertained, it's by no means a bad movie. The action is good, I had a fair few giggles - even caught a few references (the whole redshirt theme) and thought the plot was quite alright. Having read your in-depth comments I can definatly see why more serious fans of the franchise are displeased. My biggest criticism or wonder was, what was the whole point of letting the giant battlecruiser crash towards the end? It seems that the amount of people killed purely by the havoc and destruction that crash caused outweighs whatever lives was saved by initially taking over the ship? Edit: + Show Spoiler + Also it really annoys me that Kirk wakes up after 2 weeks in coma newly shaved and with perfect hair - seriously Hollywood get over yourself! I may be remembering wrong but didn't Khan intentionally crash that ship in order to kill as many people as possible? He was trying to ram it into Starfleet HQ. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On June 05 2013 03:43 I_Love_Bacon wrote: Most of the problems you posted about are, well, meaningless. Why did the klingons change? Because it's what modern-day fans want to see from a Klingon because the old ones looked nothing like another species. You would've been happier if they looked like shit? Guess we'd better make the enterprise look ultra-campy and remove all the good special effects while we're at it because they're not up to traditional specs. The amount of information on Khan originally wasn't just gathered by the Star Trek community just from one movie, as he is mentioned in other episodes of the series and novels as well. Khan's ethnicity, as a complaint, is even less interesting than the Klingon's appearance. I'm surprised you didn't mention a lack of fake-chest being shown. My problem with these complaints (all of them sans Transwarp beaming) is that it's simply anger that the franchise has been rebooted. You want this movie to have never been made. You never wanted a reboot in this manner and never wanted to see the old characters made young again. It's like being a vegetarian and complaining about eating at a steak house. You knew going into it there was no way you were going to like it because the premise alone was something you couldn't get behind. Don't get me wrong, I would've preferred a new TV series about whatever and if it was good eventually movies. That doesn't seem to be in the pipeline as there were licensing issues and shit like that. Given what Abrams had to work with, I think he's done a good job. He cant just randomly create an entirely new crew or new quadrant to explore because there'd be no connection with anything happening on screen with the audience. So he's done what he could with an IP and attempted to make it something he could work with. Under the circumstances (which are shitty and many), I think he has done a good job. Its quite obvious you didn't read. Your explanation of Khan and the Klingons is terrible and your reasoning very poor. The point is it doesn't make any sense and completely lacks attention to that fact in that they do nothing to explain this sort of thing. Worse yet, you go in your next paragraph to state a blown-up version of "urjustmadbro" as if that hasn't been done a million times and completely dismissed as a legitimate response. I wanted the movie to be something new instead of trying to do a very bad rework of Khan's storyline. I wanted them to take this reboot and run with it instead of trying to just redo all the 80s movies. We thought for a long time that Khan wasn't going to be the bad guy and that they were in fact trying to do something original after Del Torro turned it down and we saw Cumberbatch looking nothing like Khan or acting nothing like Khan in the preview shots. I went to see this basically to confirm what I already knew. I was on this production and worked it for over 30 days so I knew already what to expect but my friends also like Star Trek and we had made it a planned outting. As stated many times before (but apparently not read), I did enjoy the movie but it was lackluster. Its never going to be legendary and doesn't deserve any special mention. Still don't understand this? Go ask the Star Wars community about their gripes with the prequel trilogy vs the original trilogy. We are all quite well aware that this is lolbitching about movies on the internetz, but that doesn't mean the concerns and problems shouldn't be ignored. I've just come to understand the cinema industry very well and I realize that this is what sells. The population raised on artificial sweeteners, chemical additives and countless medications apparently can't get enough of this stuff no matter how many times its rehashed with a new skin. Its just good business for them. | ||
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: Basically all the major complaints stem from either technological inconsistencies or from problems with the timeline change. Biggest ones include: -Transwarp Beaming: The whole point of the transporter technology in Star Trek is that it has a finite range and beaming over is a very complicated process that simply won't work if you have too much motion or aren't close enough to ensure proper re-materialization at your destination. If a transporter is fail-proof and has no range, why even bother with Starships? We'd essentially have Stargate. -The Marcus Family: Little to nothing is known about anyone other than Carol Marcus in the original storyline. The problem is according to the new storyline, her father is a very prominent figure in Section 31 (a super-secret society much like the KGB were) and in starfleet. In the old storyline, he's so insignificant that most hardcore trekkies believe he wasn't even in starfleet. Also given his age, he has lived most of his life long before the temporal event occurred and so these huge changes to what used to be an insignificant character seem unnecessary. Carol was supposed to be a sort of "sweet farm-raised girl who turned out to be a genius with great vision". She was the gem of her family. Now we're supposed to believe there's suddenly a whole family involvement even though those sorts of decisions would've been made decades before the Romulan time event occurred. The whole point of Carol Marcus was not just a love interest for Kirk, but also to portray Einstein's struggle with the utilization of the atom bomb technology that he helped create for a good portion of his live. This was a very deep meaning to Carol's character and now that she's basically a female Tony Stark with even less memorable characteristics other than being just a girl for Kirk to flirt with, most of the community was not pleased. Smaller than that, its also strange Carol is suddenly British-accented as well... just doesn't make any sense. -Khan: Khan was created during the Eugenics War period in the late 20th century and ruled over almost a quarter of all of Earth (Asia and Middle Eastern regions to be more specific). He was a bloody murder who caused the war the killed over 30 million people and almost plunged humanity into a 2nd Dark Age. After being defeated, he and his people decided to take off from Earth in sleeper ships to find new worlds to rule and new life to conquer. Given that he has already had his entire life, you have to wonder why his ethnicity suddenly changed from a darker-skinned Asian-descendent with a hispanic accent to a british-accented caucasian. The other huge problem is that he seems to have turned into some action-packet berserker like X-Men's "Juggernaut" instead of the super-intelligent warlord that played the entire world for saps and very nearly won. Khan was supposed to be Hitler's story on steroids and that is not what we got. Far more story is necessary for such a deep character to be properly shown. Its probably not even possible to do it within the length of 1 single film. This whole lifetime happened hundreds of years before the temporal event, it makes no sense. For those of you who don't know the production side of this film (as I was part of the crew), we very nearly had Benicio Del Torro for the role of Khan but he turned away at the last second for some other drama movie. Many people think he would've been a far more believable Khan. -Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history. ------------------------------------------------------------ There are other smaller gripes that are more actor-related or writing-related similar to the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan which I didn't find particularly problematic but when he didn't have the proper character shown on screen (maybe directed to do so, maybe not his fault), that's where I drew a line. The whole point of an actor is to emulate accents, be put in tons of make-up and carefully-designed costumes so that you play your part. A very clear Khan role was already written in the history of the 20th century in both timelines which was not adhered to. Lets go into the others though: -McCoy and Chekov (and to a lesser extent, Scotty and Sulu): They were a major portion of many plots and were a core dynamic within the bridge crew of the Enterprise and Enterprise-A. Seeing these 2 beloved characters reduced to a quick line taken directly from "most memorable quotes" from their TV show characters on IMDB or something really irked a lot of people. In this storyline, the familiar head officers seem like they wouldn't even speak to each other if they weren't assigned by starfleet to that ship. There's almost no synergy between them that existed and that was important if you wanted to understand how close these people were. -Writing: The writing is pretty bad. They're trying to rush a lot of things that need to be drawn out and they're costing themselves in the process. For one thing space travel is not instant. In all other Star Trek TV shows and movies, there is considerable emphasis on the time spent in transit. Help is not usually that close, its a few days or even weeks away in some cases. Communications only have finite ranges and transporters and sensors have even smaller ranges. Slowing it down like that and emphasizing the reality of being in space and not zooming around across the galaxy within minutes allows you to insert scenes that develop the characters more. For example, they're trying to shove this whole Uhura and Spock romance down our throats and most people aren't buying it. The Uhura and Spock thing worked in the TV shows and later in the movies because it was set up over 80 episodes and 8+ movies! You can't throw stuff like that into a storyline that's only existed for 2 movies. A smart writer would set this sort of thing up in these films so you're already quite familiar with it when they finally do start adding those scenes in. -Fanwank: There's too much homage in the film and it actually chokes it in my opinion. I already mentioned that most of the beloved bridge crew are insignificant now and are reduced to next to no scenes and lines that are only single quips taken directly from nostalgic quotes. The "KHAAAAN" scream was amongst those things that make us fans facepalm so hard in this one. Its so obvious you want to include the popular meme that TWOK's "KHAAN" scream from Kirk became, but then they threw it in with a corny "JUST KIDDING HE'S OK" plot point to make things worse! The other obvious pander was when "John Harrison" became Khan. He didn't have to be Khan, he could've been anyone! Its your "new timeline" right? So why Khan? It feels like they were trying to pander so much to memorable lines and scenes that they ended up creating nothing but a big jumbled mess. ------------------------------------------------------------ As much as I wrote here, this barely scratches the surface. If you follow or know of any of the major Trek communities, you'd see that this movie was not received very well by a vast majority of people. Most found it the same as I did; entertaining but nothing special to rave about. It was basically just an action-packed special effects show as we expected. Needless to say, the community as a whole is rather glad to be rid of Abrahms to Star Wars and already the facebook pages, email accounts etc of Jonathan Frakes and the casts/writers of the TV shows are being blown up with requests for them to take over again. Once again I'll state that you're free to like whatever you want and yes I realize this is griping about a movie which is just silly, but I've felt like the quality of things have been slipping quickly lately and I'm starting to get ticked at the lack of originality, talent, storytelling and Big Money basically ruining things as of late in the entertainment industry. Here in LA, most all actors, musicians or production crew will tell you that these sentiments are widespread throughout the cinema-creating community and only the top guys with all the money and influence seem to only want to figure out how they can make the cheapest product with decreasing regard for standards to make the biggest bucks. Its very unfortunate, but that's how things are here in Hollywood. ----------------------------------------------------------- TL;DR ^ this I can only address two of your points but I think they're pretty simple. In Wrath of Khan, Khan wasn't actually that good. For someone who claimed to be a perfect human being and super intelligent, he made a lot of really irrational decisions. And he and his people keeled over really fast. The Khan in into Darkness was actually genetically superior. He made rational decisions and refused to die. They improved the character. As far as his ethnicity...I have no idea why he was white. Benedict Cumberbatch did an excellent job though. As far as the Klingons go, the explanation for their head ridges was from some stupid virus. It was never very interesting in the original series, it never really held up, and in the reboot it was probably better to just say fuck it they always looked this way. Every single phenomenon doesn't need an explanation, especially when the explanation is shitty to begin with. | ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
the khan in the new movie is just more confusing and underwhelming by comparison. there is no personal war in this movie; there is no real development between the characters. there is supposed to be a vendetta between khan and marcus but they never flesh out the conflict aside from marcus showing up and starting to shoot things. kirk starts out hating khan and then allies with him, but doesn't have anything to do with him beyond that. kirk is then replaced by spock who is then thrown into the conflict in the latter part of the movie, and even he doesn't really "finish the job". imo they spent so much damn screentime with the torpedos. they could have spent that time writing scenes focusing on khan and building his character, rather than that stupid 2minute khan-crying dialogue. | ||
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 05 2013 04:19 a176 wrote: the main argument is that khan could have been even more. at most he is just a "action-movie baddie" in this movie, there is little depth to the character. the khan in wrath of khan was much more "joker"-like, a subtle madness to his evil perfection. in wrath of khan, the personal war between him and kirk completes both the story and the characters. the khan in the new movie is just more confusing and underwhelming by comparison. there is no personal war in this movie; there is no real development between the characters. there is supposed to be a vendetta between khan and marcus but they never flesh out the conflict aside from marcus showing up and starting to shoot things. kirk starts out hating khan and then allies with him, but doesn't have anything to do with him beyond that. kirk is then replaced by spock who is then thrown into the conflict in the latter part of the movie, and even he doesn't really "finish the job". imo they spent so much damn screentime with the torpedos. they could have spent that time writing scenes focusing on khan and building his character, rather than that stupid 2minute khan-crying dialogue. When was the last time you watched Wrath of Khan? Cause that Khan was incredibly campy, there wasn't anything subtle about him. And his evil master plan was actually incredibly poorly executed. He got himself and all of his people killed remember? | ||
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On June 05 2013 03:59 sCCrooked wrote: Its quite obvious you didn't read. Your explanation of Khan and the Klingons is terrible and your reasoning very poor. The point is it doesn't make any sense and completely lacks attention to that fact in that they do nothing to explain this sort of thing. Worse yet, you go in your next paragraph to state a blown-up version of "urjustmadbro" as if that hasn't been done a million times and completely dismissed as a legitimate response. I wanted the movie to be something new instead of trying to do a very bad rework of Khan's storyline. I wanted them to take this reboot and run with it instead of trying to just redo all the 80s movies. We thought for a long time that Khan wasn't going to be the bad guy and that they were in fact trying to do something original after Del Torro turned it down and we saw Cumberbatch looking nothing like Khan or acting nothing like Khan in the preview shots. I went to see this basically to confirm what I already knew. I was on this production and worked it for over 30 days so I knew already what to expect but my friends also like Star Trek and we had made it a planned outting. As stated many times before (but apparently not read), I did enjoy the movie but it was lackluster. Its never going to be legendary and doesn't deserve any special mention. Still don't understand this? Go ask the Star Wars community about their gripes with the prequel trilogy vs the original trilogy. We are all quite well aware that this is lolbitching about movies on the internetz, but that doesn't mean the concerns and problems shouldn't be ignored. I've just come to understand the cinema industry very well and I realize that this is what sells. The population raised on artificial sweeteners, chemical additives and countless medications apparently can't get enough of this stuff no matter how many times its rehashed with a new skin. Its just good business for them. I did read. Just because I don't think Khan's ethnicity or the Klingon's appearance is important doesn't suddenly mean I'm incapable of understanding the arguments. The point is, there was a genetic mutation (news flash, there wasn't, they just said so on DS9 so nerds would have rationale for the change, even if it is never further explained (late edit: To clarify. The reason was aesthetic, a rationale was added later)) and this movie takes place before it should've happened, rabble rabble rabble. You then go on to say it yourself, you want the movie to be something new. It can't be. They can't create "New" Star Trek movies without the accompanying series and expect them to be remotely Star Trek-like. I understand all of the gripes and all of the complaints. The problem isn't with the movie, Abrams... it's with the Fans expecting something that can't be delivered. I'm not saying there can't be a new, great Star Trek series or movies that can't be created. I'm saying that under the circumstances that these movies were created they're more than adequate. Believe it or not, I am a member of both Star Trek and Star Wars communities. Just because I'm not up in arms over shit doesn't mean I don't care. I simply understand the rationale as to why things are done this way and choose to direct my complaints about, you know, things that aren't pointless (transwarp beaming being a good target to bitch about, as an example). | ||
Charlson
Austria7 Posts
On June 05 2013 02:51 sCCrooked wrote: -Klingons: There already was a rather large debate long ago about how Klingons got from their form in the Original series (basically just people with small mustaches and goatees with some skin pigmentation) to the almost beast-like aliens we see later in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Its even addressed in DS9 by Worf who stated "its simply not something in our past we like to discuss with outsiders". What's not believable is that they're somehow already in this state in this timeline since apparently the change occurred after OST but before TNG and was a rather big happening in Klingon history. I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On June 05 2013 04:40 Charlson wrote: I am a Star Trek fan, though not a huge one, so i can be mistaken. But weren't there a TNG episode, in which some Klingon clerics cloned the Klingon hero Kahlas (dunno how to spell it) who lived even centuries before the timeline of TOS. His appearance was clearly the one of a contemporary Klingon. You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. | ||
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote: You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On June 05 2013 04:56 Klondikebar wrote: Wait are you serious? The movie was what...2 and a half hours long? At what point were they supposed to make us appreciate a culture that was barely involved in the plot? If you want them to develop every species that gets screen time then you better get ready for a 60 hour movie. You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. | ||
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 05 2013 05:02 sCCrooked wrote: You don't seem to understand that the proper way to do such a thing is to develop them with small inserts over time. This is exactly why the most detailed reviews often include a criticism about the whole film feeling rushed as if it were trying to throw out a bunch of stories at once without any particular cohesion or progressive development of these different story elements. I don't want them to explain everything that they had in there thoroughly, I expect them to only keep in what they can explain instead of all these gray areas where the fanbase literally is having to make up its own conclusions about what the hell is happening in "Nu Trek" as its been coined. Its basic writing skills that are missing from this. Again, a 2 and a half hour movie. You're just mad they didn't release an entire season of a TV show. But I'll go ahead and ask for funsies, what should they have told us about the Klingon culture that they didn't tell us already (that is too obscure for them to expect a main stream audience to already know)? P.S. They do mention the Klingon sense of honor when Uhura is talking to them. | ||
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On June 05 2013 04:52 sCCrooked wrote: You are correct this is one of the biggest plotholes people know of in TNG's storyline. The other thing is the Klingons are little more than the putties were in the original Power Rangers cheesy series. There's no real depth to them either as they're just seen as ruthless barbarian aliens at this point. There's no appreciation for their culture, sense of honor, etc. Its like they just added them in to show Khan killing some stuff. There really isn't very much depth to the Klingons anyway, their culture is that they are warlike, their sense of honor is that they are warlike. Their one and only dimension is their warlike nature, and every single thing we have ever learnt about the Klingons is just another example of their warlike nature. I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. Giving alien cultures depth is not done in Star Trek. I like the Klingons, but they are a caricature. | ||
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
There's far too many ways they could've done the intros to both storylines to get into. This should be obvious. I have not seen the movie yet, but if they were portrayed as ruthless barbarians, then that is accurate, becaise that is what the Klingons are and always have been in Star Trek. All that's necessary from your post is right here. You're completely incorrect and do not understand this well enough to discuss. Obvious enough for a good example, I hope? No because just like with the obvious troll, you're just begging the question as if its on me to prove something when the finished product has already been released. Unless you didn't take any form of literature or writing studies, this should be basic knowledge and the ability to identify when a poorly-written story is placing too many partial-story-strands into the main arc causing the whole thing to be a hole-ridden mess with tons of gray areas and unexplained loose ends is necessary to understand or discuss this kind of matter. Without that knowledge you can't possibly have enough of a base to form a well-thought review or criticism of criticism. | ||
| ||