[LinearPhilosopher]

Abyss, on 27 May 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Kirk asks Scotty to check something out.
Scotty drinks scotch, then goes to check it out.

What more do you need to know?



...other than how the fuck he just cruises into a super secret military installation, but like i said....

it's simple he knows unlike chekov that asking for a nuclear vessel isn't a way to be discrete

[Garak]

Aren't there any privately owned shuttles or something? As for the security .... the Federation should really fire their Head of Security, he's obviously sleeping on the job.

[Abyss]

io9 does a fairly scathing FAQ .
Dwells on the 'boohoo that's not real science' points which is inherently silly reasoning, but some of their other plot hole points are valid.

Not that i cared when Harrison was gunning down Klingon gunships, but hey...

[McLovin]

Saw it again. Loved it again.

That scene where the Vengeance comes hurtling up behind the Enterprise in warp is awesome.

And Benedict Cumberbatch's voice is just awesome. It just drips venom.

[Abyss]

McLovin, on 31 May 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

...Benedict Cumberbatch's voice is just awesome. It just drips venom.

Considering he was doing a role made legend by Ricardo Montalban, i thought he did a solid job.

[Cause]

Terrible terrible movie. Cant understand how this has an 8.2 on IMDB! Lets ignore the plot holes, the lack of internal consistency (Kronos is an hours drive from earth now?, we can teleport across the universe?), the way it apes the wrath of khan, the way Alice Eve was shot in her bra and panties (you put her on the payroll you show her in a bra, I get it, but do it with some class), the lens-flares! No what makes this movie unforgivable was the way they telegraph every move an hour in advance. I get it, one of the crew members is called Checkhov but come on.

Spoiler

Lets see if Khans blood can revive the dead an hour before we need it! Lets telegraph the whole morality issue about nuking a man from orbit an hour before Kirk makes this realization and goes a different route, lets tell everyone the attack is coming on starfleet HQ a minute before it goes down, Lets mention arming all the torpedoes before sending them to khan! The movie has no tension at all!!!

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 10 June 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Terrible terrible movie. Cant understand how this has an 8.2 on IMDB! Lets ignore the plot holes, the lack of internal consistency (Kronos is an hours drive from earth now?, we can teleport across the universe?), the way it apes the wrath of khan, the way Alice Eve was shot in her bra and panties (you put her on the payroll you show her in a bra, I get it, but do it with some class), the lens-flares! No what makes this movie unforgivable was the way they telegraph every move an hour in advance. I get it, one of the crew members is called Checkhov but come on.

Spoiler

Lets see if Khans blood can revive the dead an hour before we need it! Lets telegraph the whole morality issue about nuking a man from orbit an hour before Kirk makes this realization and goes a different route, lets tell everyone the attack is coming on starfleet HQ a minute before it goes down, Lets mention arming all the torpedoes before sending them to khan! The movie has no tension at all!!!

Any time I see this opinion I'm a little confused. This is Star Trek after all. Plot holes, telegraphing, and self-reverence is pretty much the show/films bread and butter.

I felt like I was watching a Star Trek movie (an arguably more action-packed one than normal), warts and all.

I dunno. I guess I enjoyed it for what it was. Star Trek has never ever been all that revolutionary...nor has it ever really been known for thought-provoking, complex subject matter or writing. It's grandstanding, blustering, posturing space opera. It's the Saturday Afternoon Matinee fare. Always has been, and probably always will be. I mean we are talking about a series where there is ONE invented android (and his brother, and daughter I guess) and he can't use contractions...because "Hey. Robots talk funny dontch'a know."

I can certainly see why some folk dislike it, as this type of fare is not for everyone. As to the ratings and overall consensus of enjoyment...I'll wager it's because there seems to be a large-ish portion of the population who simply wanted action-packed, swashbuckling, grandstanding Saturday Afternoon Matinee genre film...and that's pretty much what we got.

Just my two cents. Sorry you didn't like it though. I don't like being let down by movies I look fwd to enjoying, so I understand the upset.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Yeah this movie was awful, from a storytelling standpoint. If you get a lobotomy and need some colors and noise to stimulate synapses then, yes, good movie. But other than that, what was the point?

Spoiler

- Can anyone boil down the plot in a couple sentences?
- None of the characters had what could be considered an arc, so I didn't give a shit about any of them.
- The whole "bad guy gets captured on purpose" thing has been done to death, and yielded nothing.
- So if they fired the torpedoes at the Klingon planet, wouldn't Khan's crew be all dead anyway?
- It seemed like Abrams just threw a bunch of old Trek references at summer viewers who MAY have heard of these things before and chuckled at their appearance. "Tee hee, a tribble!" "Ha! He screamed 'KHAAAAAN!'" "Look, guys, some Klingons!" "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor!"
- Why have a Prime directive? If you are going to break it within the first 10 minutes of the film, why even use it? They rid themselves of other 60's ST plot devices, why not this one? It never came back to affect them or the story, and it was a pointless way to set up the mirroring "I'll do anything to save a member of my crew." They shouldn't have been on that planet anyway, as that mission itself was a violation of the prime directive. Ah, fuck it right? The PD is just, again, something people have heard of, so they cram it in there.
- If Kirk would do anything for his crew, why isn't he more concerned about getting Scotty back to run the engineering room. He just settles for Checkov's "Sure I can do it, maybe!" which ends up putting his entire crew at risk! So I don't believe that he WOULD do anything for his crew, who btw died in massive numbers via fiery death or cold space vacuum suffocation and pressure explodey without a single word of remembrance.
- Cold fusion to stop a volcano? Cold fusion is not actually cold.
- Spock is an emotionless Vulcan except when he isn't which is all the time. *Sigh*
- They wake up Khan to build a warship? Huh?! How did he have the foresight that starfleet would fire the missles? Did he disable the explosives in the missles? How did he know they would fire all 72 missles? You can be a super genius all you want, but to know that all these little details would happen because your magic ring blew up a secret base so you could get revenge on starfleet commanders in order to get them to fire EXACTLY 72 missles loaded with your comatose superfriends at a resourceless Klingon planet in order for him to [fill in whatever Khan's plan was following this] is just bullshit and left up to too much chance things occurring for Khan to ever plan it out.

To me, it wasn't just about gaping plot holes as much as it was an iincredibly poor story. The emotion and drama of the ultimate death scene was rendered depthless because the rest of the movie was Die Hard 4 in space. This movie was written for blockbuster watching idiots and Asian audiences to throw their money at. But it didn't have to be. Its just a bunch of stuff plastered onto a screen and it didn't make sense. Its an insult to people who like movies, and an iinsult to the Star Trek fans, who will shell out their money no matter what because it says Star Trek in the title. And I went to see it because its received some good ratings, as Cause above has stated, but it in no way deserves those ratings and should have been treated more like After Earth has been treated, which is also a shitty movie, but nowhere near as bad as the critics have said it was.

I didn't even mention alternate reality Future Spock, which is complete crap and I plucked out my own eyeballs after the movie because of it.

[McLovin]

QuickTidal, on 10 June 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Always has been, and probably always will be.

Except when it isn't, and then you get...STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE.

zzzzzzzzzzz....

[QuickTidal]

McLovin, on 10 June 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 10 June 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Always has been, and probably always will be.

Except when it isn't, and then you get...STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE.

zzzzzzzzzzz....

Ha! Fair point.

[QuickTidal]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 10 June 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Yeah this movie was awful, from a storytelling standpoint. If you get a lobotomy and need some colors and noise to stimulate synapses then, yes, good movie. But other than that, what was the point?

Spoiler

- Can anyone boil down the plot in a couple sentences?
- None of the characters had what could be considered an arc, so I didn't give a shit about any of them.
- The whole "bad guy gets captured on purpose" thing has been done to death, and yielded nothing.
- So if they fired the torpedoes at the Klingon planet, wouldn't Khan's crew be all dead anyway?
- It seemed like Abrams just threw a bunch of old Trek references at summer viewers who MAY have heard of these things before and chuckled at their appearance. "Tee hee, a tribble!" "Ha! He screamed 'KHAAAAAN!'" "Look, guys, some Klingons!" "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor!"
- Why have a Prime directive? If you are going to break it within the first 10 minutes of the film, why even use it? They rid themselves of other 60's ST plot devices, why not this one? It never came back to affect them or the story, and it was a pointless way to set up the mirroring "I'll do anything to save a member of my crew." They shouldn't have been on that planet anyway, as that mission itself was a violation of the prime directive. Ah, fuck it right? The PD is just, again, something people have heard of, so they cram it in there.
- If Kirk would do anything for his crew, why isn't he more concerned about getting Scotty back to run the engineering room. He just settles for Checkov's "Sure I can do it, maybe!" which ends up putting his entire crew at risk! So I don't believe that he WOULD do anything for his crew, who btw died in massive numbers via fiery death or cold space vacuum suffocation and pressure explodey without a single word of remembrance.
- Cold fusion to stop a volcano? Cold fusion is not actually cold.
- Spock is an emotionless Vulcan except when he isn't which is all the time. *Sigh*
- They wake up Khan to build a warship? Huh?! How did he have the foresight that starfleet would fire the missles? Did he disable the explosives in the missles? How did he know they would fire all 72 missles? You can be a super genius all you want, but to know that all these little details would happen because your magic ring blew up a secret base so you could get revenge on starfleet commanders in order to get them to fire EXACTLY 72 missles loaded with your comatose superfriends at a resourceless Klingon planet in order for him to [fill in whatever Khan's plan was following this] is just bullshit and left up to too much chance things occurring for Khan to ever plan it out.

To me, it wasn't just about gaping plot holes as much as it was an iincredibly poor story. The emotion and drama of the ultimate death scene was rendered depthless because the rest of the movie was Die Hard 4 in space. This movie was written for blockbuster watching idiots and Asian audiences to throw their money at. But it didn't have to be. Its just a bunch of stuff plastered onto a screen and it didn't make sense. Its an insult to people who like movies, and an iinsult to the Star Trek fans, who will shell out their money no matter what because it says Star Trek in the title. And I went to see it because its received some good ratings, as Cause above has stated, but it in no way deserves those ratings and should have been treated more like After Earth has been treated, which is also a shitty movie, but nowhere near as bad as the critics have said it was.

I didn't even mention alternate reality Future Spock, which is complete crap and I plucked out my own eyeballs after the movie because of it.

It's a bit insulting to repeatedly call those who enjoyed it idiots...and let's not get into "Asian audiences" since the racism dripping off that sentence is not subtle.

It's not an insult to those who enjoyed it for what it was.

And yes, you got neg-repped for the Asian line.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Oh, please, I didn't call you an idiot. I said it was made for idiots. Idiots being people who blindly flock to theaters to see explosions and what not. Unless that is you. Then you are an idiot.

The "Asian line" refers to the removing of plot elements that can only be understood in a western context, so they are removed from movies so that it will appeal to a wider international audience. There was nothing racist intended and I SHOULD neg rep you for being ignorant of a long used Hollywood tactic and getting up on your PC high horse so you can condescend to me, but I won't stoop to some bullshit like that, which was your kneejerk response to being butthurt by an actual criticism of the movie that you think you enjoyed so much, but were more than likely dazzled by via all the bright lights and loud explosions.

This post has been edited by Spoilsport Stonny: 10 June 2013 - 01:58 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

This was my most hotly anticipated movie of the year. If anyone remembers the thread for the first reboot movie (one of my favourite threads ever) you will know I'm a terrible Trekkie. I loved every minute of it, couldn't care less about plot holes and copying the original Khan. Then again, I mostly go to the movies to see explosions and what not

[Spoilsport Stonny]

http://www.independe...ce-8563099.html

http://www.filmschoo...whitewashed.php

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-17448499

This is what I was referring to.

[QuickTidal]

A. I have no issue with you disliking the film. As I already stated to Cause, I understood why he didn't like it. That you hated it so much affects MY enjoyment of it not one bit. So lets not think that you and I have to share taste in films. We don't, and you are welcome to hate whatever films you wish.

B. The statement "This movie was written for blockbuster watching idiots and Asian audiences to throw their money at." Is fairly clear in its dismissal of those who liked it. I actually wasn't taking personal offense to your statement. I said that it was "insulting" to those who enjoyed it to imply that since they DID enjoy it...they must be one of these "blockbuster watching idiots" you deem them to be. There is really no gray area to that statement. You could just talk about how much you hated it (like Cause did)...as that's what the thread is for, discussion. But you went further, The idea that anyone else who does happen to like it is all of the sudden an idiot because of that, is perhaps a tad over the line. Your opinion is as subjective as the next person, but that doesn't really make it okay to slight those with a differing opinion to yours. You can't qualify the above flat statement after the fact to make it out to be that you "meant" it to not include everyone.

C. The Asian thing cannot be construed in any other way. Sorry. To say that the film was tailored to aim at a racial group (of all things) to imply a generality of tone or style, but then try to convince me that you meant it was de-Westernized for global audiences...then why use Asian? Why not Russian? Or Australian? Or French? Or Italian? If it was a De-westernizing thing (which I've never heard of being employed by Hollywood EVER, seriously they'd be crucified for such a tailoring) then why single it out as "Asian audiences"? Why not global audiences? (EDIT: see my response below to what it turns out you were actually talking about)

As I said you are welcome to criticize the film, and I have zero issues with that. You will note I refuted none of your reasons for disliking it. Because you are entitled to all those reasons.

Lastly, neg rep away man. Go for it.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 June 2013 - 02:26 PM

[QuickTidal]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 10 June 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

http://www.independe...ce-8563099.html

http://www.filmschoo...whitewashed.php

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-17448499

This is what I was referring to.

This is not a Hollywood trope per say. You may need to read those articles a little more thoroughly. They have more to do with financing, and governmental influence, and cultural aspects. Chinese productions, like any Film production need to have a certain amount of native crew (by law), and when these productions get actual financing from that country, then the film has to be set out to appeal to that audience and their cultural ideals. Things they won't like are removed, and things they do like are beefed up. See: IRON MAN 3.

It's not like whole movies are being created for Chinese audiences that are different from what we get on the whole...they are merely tweaked to get more in line with those cultural differences and to add more Chinese content.

You implied that this movie was for idiots, and in the SAME SENTENCE referred to Asian Audiences...as if they are stupid and only like action candy blockbusters.

If that's not what you intended, then I'm comfortable letting it go. But it was, at the very least, poorly worded.

And to be honest, discussion of Chinese financing doesn't apply to STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS at all...since it wasn't a film that was co-financed in such a way...which means you just chose to use it as a stereotype cause you hated the film and wanted an extra reason to batter at it? I dunno.

Hate the movie man, that's totally cool. But couching it in all the extra crap was weird to me.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 June 2013 - 02:30 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Quick Tidal:

I don't want to neg rep you. You expressed yourself in a way that told everyone on here how you felt. Which is exactly what I did. If I thought we had to share a like of every film I never would have commented on it, which I did because I was so disappointed by it.

A. OK. you were not insulted. Fine. A post is on here to talk about the film. I talked about it.

B. I can't see anything wrong with my statement. The movie was written for the same dumbed-down american audiences that flocked to Transformers 2, Rush Hour 2, Saw IV, GI Joe, etc. etc. These are not thinking peoples' films. Star Trek has a history of being something that evokes a larger conversation about right and wrong, utopia, eugenics, war, peace, logic, friendships, COMAPSSION AND EMPATHY. Forgive me for thinking that the people on this message board community would understand that, and not just be an audience of watching things blow up for no reason at all.

C. I posted three great articles that support exactly what I said. I said Asian because China is the #2 audience in the world and is rapidly growing while US audiences and western audiences in general are dwindling. I said Asian, because on the whole, their emerging markets are flocking to theaters because they all don't own Home theater systems that negate the necessity of having to go out to a theater. Japan is #3, btw, but they are culturally different from China, so I grouped them together and said "Asian". Your accusations are baseless and inflammatory. My argument is rooted in facts and I have supported it with links to back me up. I did not say Russian, or other European and Western countries because our storytelling is rooted in the same archetypes and folk stories. Good/evil, black/whote, noble/malevolent. Asian history has a different take with their archetypes and storytelling. So does Africa, but they aren't flocking to movie theaters in record growing numbers.

Misconstrue all you want, but I feel vindicated.

You can't refute my points because they are logical, Captain.

I disagree that you have an issue with my criticism. You seemed to take my "idiots" comment very personal. Maybe I am wrong, but here we are.

Maybe its because I'm still relatively new here, and you don't have much of a history of interacting with me. Maybe I am misunderstood and people think I'm a dick. Maybe YOU think I'm a dick. Maybe my avatar causes people to not take me seriously. Still, I think you are being stubborn.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I want to put this to bed.

I watch hundreds of movies made in China, Japan, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, etc. etc. every year. The movies those countries make in their homelands can be spectacular. Old Boy is one of the best movies ever made. Infernal Affairs? Ridiculous! Ichi the Killer? wow! And most of the ones I like are action flicks. They have the ability to make any movie as good, and likely better, than Hollywood has made in the last 20 years. Their characters have substance, the stories advance and the plot devices make sense.

When Hollywood makes a movie, a blockbuster movie, they are looking to appeal to an international audience. The worst movie ever made is "2012". It made about $150 million in the US. But internationally it made $650 million! And the bulk of that was Asian audiences.

ST:ID was made for about $190 million dollars. It needs to make back its money. Not just once over, either. But multiple times. And it will. And because of this, we will never have another Star Trek movie like Wrath of Khan, which I think is perfect, and has all the elements of movies that I love. We will have another one of these hunks of crap.

In order for these movies to make their money back, they rely on international box office receipts. In order to ensure a wider appeal over multiple cultures, the movies need to simplified. It works OK for american audiences becuase, thankfully, there are enough people that go to movies here that don't care about things like plot holes, poor scripting, undeveloped characters and shaky cams. These are the idiots I refer to.

Now, I didn't say "Idiots and Asian idiots". I said "Idiots and Asians". Glib it may be, but there is no doubt that I was not insulting Asians.

See #4:
http://www.cracked.c...ovies-suck.html

Back on topic please. I am sorry to cause such a distraction.

This post has been edited by Spoilsport Stonny: 10 June 2013 - 02:59 PM

[QuickTidal]

B. If you wanted to say you hated the movie. That's cool. You even gave reasons. That's also cool. When you start to try to put words, or thoughts into others mouths about what is "good" to them. Then there is a problem. I think you will find that a lot of members here enjoy some "splodey, splodey". Just because we read books as cerebral as the Malazan books, doesn't mean that we can't also find enjoyment in popcorn, candy films. It's the implication that because it's not complex, or cerebral it is therefore unworthy of not only your time, but everyone's time...is presumptuous. And in that list of movies you made, I enjoy some and not others...I can enjoy something as thought-provoking as Donnie Darko on the same day as I can enjoy something as ridiculous and action splodey fun as RUSH HOUR 2.

C. I see where you were headed (after the fact) with your statement...but that made it no less racially-charged. The implication you made is that Hollywood crafted STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS to appeal to Asian Audiences. That they added or took something away from it that would appeal to a different cultural dynamic...and this was made in a sentence where you also implied that it was "written for idiots"...and then you try to back it up using articles that propound about Chinese-financed films and how they are tailored in certain ways to appeal to their home audience. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is NOT a Chinese-financed film. No where in the production is anything nearing what you used as your "back up". There are no culturally diverse scenes added to it, nor are there any extra roles set out for specifically Chinese actors to portray. So you argument seemed to be that because it's a popcorn action movie (which you felt was written for idiots) it MUST have been tailored by Hollywood producers (behind closed doors) to appeal to the Chinese market because they like shit that blows up and don't care for substance? Because that's what I got from your statement. I can't see how those articles you quoted apply to a non-Chinese produced film? Prove me wrong I guess?

In that same vein, even films that ARE made for the Chinese market and are produced partially by them (IRON MAN 3), North America gets a totally different cut than China does anyways...so lumping it all into that "Asian audiences to throw money at the screen" doesn't even apply to you, unless you live in China and see that cut. So even then that statement doesn't really apply.

I'm sorry you found my statement inflammatory, but I found yours to be as well. So there's that.

EDIT: I agree we should let it go. Back on topic. Apologies for saying what you said was racist. I don't think that of you, I just found it a very poorly worded statement, and now that you've gone on I can see what you were aiming at, so we can let it go.

*shakes hands*

Note: Please don't use the word "butthurt"...it's a terrible internet slang word that doesn't help when discussing things rationally.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 June 2013 - 03:04 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Quote

I can't see how those articles you quoted apply to a non-Chinese produced film? Prove me wrong I guess?

This is a quote from the BBC article:

Quote

Blockbusters like Avatar have been hugely popular and foreign films - usually big-budget Hollywood fare - account for about half of the country's box office takings.

THis is from the first paragraph of the Independent article:

Quote

Hollywood is now in full, panting pursuit of the Chinese film market, the world's second largest, and it's prepared to alter scripts, recast baddies, and transplant entire productions to win the business.

The Film School rejects blog posts discusses the lengths Hollywood will go to to make films more appealing to an Asian audience.

Quote

EDIT: I agree we should let it go. Back on topic. Apologies for saying what you said was racist. I don't think that of you, I just found it a very poorly worded statement, and now that you've gone on I can see what you were aiming at, so we can let it go.

Wonderful. I am happy to come to a gentlemanly agreement. No one likes to be branded a racist in a public forum, and I am no exception.

However I love the term "butthurt" and will continue to use it, but your concern is duly noted and I will try to refrain from using it in your company and on this board.