Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 22 (Showing 1-22)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Sat, Jul 27, 2013, 12:29am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

We can simultaneously consider his potential review good and bad, until presented with evidence that indicates either possibility.

"Schrodinger's Review" :)
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 12:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Nicholas Meyer said in the commentary to Wrath Of Khan that Montalban, even back in 67, suffered from a battle injury or something to one of his legs, and had a permanent limp that (according to Mr. Meyer) he worked very hard to conceal, and did so brilliantly. However, it's worth noting that a stunt double would have been required for any scenes of all-out combat.

WOK has only one such scene, and Khan is not the one Kirk beats up. There was a fight planned for Kirk and Khan, but this was never filmed as the budget would not allow it.

For these reasons, up until now, we have more or less had to depend largely on simple, singular shows of strength to understand what a dangerous person Khan is.

I find that the combat scenes in STID really drive home the point of how incredibly powerful and scary a genetically engineered super warrior would be.

You realize that selective breeding is a thing? I'm not certain, but I believe it is unlawful in some parts of the world, if not at least frowned upon?

Khan is the work of people who don't realize that humans have been given limitations because they need them in order to possess the incredibly vital character trait called compassion. If you construct a killing machine with the heart of a proud, greedy, selfish, emotional human being, you are unleashing a monster. It's not like they could selectively breed out emotions.

The point I'm making is, somebody on the crew said "I don't want them to laugh at the villain." That was a decision someone made, and I feel it adds a verisimilitude to the idea behind the character.

Ben Cumberbatch is attempting to fill a role that NOBODY is ever going to forget that Montalban played. The world knows Montalban as Khan, for as long as history gets recorded. There simply HAD to be a completely "from scratch" take on the character, or it wouldn't have been possible to do it.

I'll close now, by saying that I remember exactly what I was thinking when Spock Prime gave this film what are destined to be its Arc Words. I was thinking that Spock Prime's human side was thinking:

"I remember him. Sonofabitch killed me, for god's sake watch your back!!!"
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Thu, Jul 25, 2013, 3:55am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S2: Death Wish

There was a missed opportunity in this episode, unless I'm wrong...

When Q (DeLancie) appeared on the Enterprise for the first time, one of the first things he does is deep freeze one Lt. Torres, whose skin tone and hair color match B'ellana's.

It's not a big jump to think that this man (who was also a Goldshirt) is B'ellana's father. A line, or better yet a scene referencing this would have been very welcome, especially in light of the gimmicky first act we got.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Sun, Jul 21, 2013, 10:20am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

"I agree with you that in ST 2009 they did a good job of exploring this alternate universe angle but in Into Darkness I just got the feeling that they were ripping off TWOK."

I find it to be unnecessarily cynical how quickly and easily people accuse writers of plagiarism when their intent is often homage. This may or may not be the process occurring here and now, but you've got to admit, if they were going to make some kind of heavily referential picture, they pick the right things to refer to.

"You also said that... "Personally, I don't feel any of the story threads put forth in STID go against the established characters or framework of the setting." Ok, you made a good point about Spock being messed up in the head due to the destruction of Vulcan but don't you feel that this Spock is a little too emotional? It took Spock Prime years to come to grips with his emotions. He is extremely reserved. It doesn't make sense for him to completely lose control of himself when he has spent so many years fighting to hide his emotions."

There are many scenes in the movie devoted to showing Spock maintaining his cool Vulcan exterior. I'm afraid the fact is, and I'm sure Mr. Quintillion will agree, he's just not quite as cool as Leonard Nimoy. I really can't fault him for it, because frankly I don't know who is.

"I also think that they got the character of Khan completely wrong. The biggest sin was when they showed him crying in front of Kirk and Spock. Khan had a very aggressive and dominant personality. He would never show a sign of weakness in front of another Alpha male, in this case Kirk. I know that he was trying to manipulate him but this was not Khan's style."

Cumberbatch as Khan turns away from Kirk and Spock before the year falls, so technically you are correct, he would not do this *in front of them* per se. The scene ends before he moves a muscle, IIRC.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Sat, Jul 20, 2013, 8:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Someday they do need to make Star Trek II: Chekhov Screams Again.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 1:31pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Too true, too true. As I said, this E2 feller is kinda out there.

I just thought it was a rather compelling argument that if they're going to spend money making a film (190 million+, if I'm not mistaken), the lion's share of the budget is naturally going to be devoted to the Spectacle aspect of it, or what you might call "showmanship."

Personally, I don't feel any of the story threads put forth in STID go against the established characters or framework of the setting. The technobabble is getting unbelievably ludicrous, but that's just never been a sticking point for me. The technological aspects of the story need to be wholly secondary to the characters and their ideas for the story to move at an acceptable pace.

Stephen King says in his book "On Writing" that if he tells you there's a cage on a table with a Rabbit that has the number 8 on its back, to tell you the dimensions of the table or the style of cage or its shape isn't storytelling, but an instruction manual.

And frankly, after watching "Threshold" (VOY), I gave up on trying to understand the technical aspects of the Star Trek universe, except as it relates to getting the story moving, and have, I feel, found much more enjoyment than I used to get out of it.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 11:34am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Found this:

"E2 - Thu, May 30, 2013 - 12:03pm (USA Central)
I saw "Star Trek Into Darkness". It was fun. I enjoyed it.

I can totally see why people who don't know or just don't like TOS or TNG, DS9, or the earlier films would like it.

Those older versions of trek were often slow and talky. They occasionally tried to act as though they were actual science fiction and acknowledge some of the laws of physics. They frequently tried to ram ideals or morals down our throats, or make us think about things from a different perspective. Once in a while they even portrayed complex issues in shades of gray, rather than absolutes. (Sometimes the assumed villain going in actually turned out to not even be bad!) They spent years building up relationships between characters. And on top of all that, they kept trying to sneak in this "if we work together, despite differences in gender, race, religion, even species, we CAN learn, and make things better" subtext- all that Roddenberry clap-trap.

It is safe to say that JJ has avoided all of those pitfalls, and crafted a action packed, highly entertaining film free from any of that old baggage. In fact, he's done it twice, now. Face it - we need "Blow stuff up" films for people who don't love overbuilt cars, giant transforming robots or super spies.

So, for those nay-sayers who suggest that what they loved about Star Trek, what made it stand apart from all those other fantasy adventures set in space, is absent- well, suck it up. If you really claim you want entertainment that requires you to think, you're barking up the wrong franchise. Go read a book."

I would agree except for the part about racial integration being clap-trap. Certainly, much of what Roddenberry had to say was in retrospect complete self-serving garbage, but racial integration is not, and I'll hear no dismissive viewpoints toward it.

But he is right: Star Trek is what it is: cheap entertainment. Wrath of Khan cost $11 million, and yet it's the crown jewel of the franchise.

And you should read books! "Songs of Distant Earth" for one.

But don't take my word for it.

(Musical Cue)
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 11:08am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Macca, upon reflection, what are your impressions of the film?

I feel it necessary to point out that if you don't begin, follow through with, and end on a definite statement about the film, you really call into question, in my mind, the assertion that you have even seen the film in question. You saw it, right?

What did you think of the film? How does it compare to Star Trek: The Motion Picture?
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 9:52am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I could also say this.

Something we tend to forget in the fandom is that Spock doesn't have a whole lot of friends. His very nature as a Vulcan prohibits expressions of personal affection, and while he is half human, he went to school entirely with Vulcans.

Now add into that his entire race being reduced to ~10,000 people.

This is a guy with serious issues.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 8:52am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Like the man said:

"I will not allow posturing and bigotry to destroy this meeting!"

It was said, by Genre-Buster:

"So let's conduct an experiment. As I said before, I haven't seen STID and don't plan to - this is the absolute truth. Pitch the movie to me - honestly tell me and your fellow forum readers why you personally liked it, and why you think we should see it. It's not enough to say it was fun - I want to know WHY it was fun. No need to quote box office returns or critical responses. I have access to Rotten Tomatoes and can look that stuff up for myself."

To which I replied:

"Star Trek Into Darkness gives the Star Trek fan a glimpse into the possibilities of the Star Trek mythos.

In a universe where parallel dimensions are known to exist, can there still be such a thing as fate? Our our fates ultimately tied to our identities? Do the choices we make result only from the environment we live in, or is there some immutable quality to our consciousness that spans the breadth of all quantum realities?

Will two people who are destined to be lovers ultimately find each other no matter what is done to change the course of history? Conversely, will two people who are destined to be enemies ultimately find a way to get knives at each other's throats, regardless of what temporal discrepancies shred the fabric of history around them?

It's a look at the romance inherent, but up until now unacknowledged, in the story of the brave crew of the Starship Enterprise, no bloody A, B, C, or D."

This doesn't constitute a loss of "face" for anyone, and if I may say so, we are not Feudal Lords, we're just Trek fans.

Now enough with the rancor, that belongs in another franchise anyhow. ;)
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 8:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 1:25pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

It's almost as though our violent human emotions are encroaching on the proceedings very much against our will.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 11:50am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness gives the Star Trek fan a glimpse into the possibilities of the Star Trek mythos.

In a universe where parallel dimensions are known to exist, can there still be such a thing as fate? Our our fates ultimately tied to our identities? Do the choices we make result only from the environment we live in, or is there some immutable quality to our consciousness that spans the breadth of all quantum realities?

Will two people who are destined to be lovers ultimately find each other no matter what is done to change the course of history? Conversely, will two people who are destined to be enemies ultimately find a way to get knives at each other's throats, regardless of what temporal discrepancies shred the fabric of history around them?

It's a look at the romance inherent, but up until now unacknowledged, in the story of the brave crew of the Starship Enterprise, no bloody A, B, C, or D.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Thu, Jul 18, 2013, 12:29am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

The problem seems to lie in cultural barriers that exist between us. We're less conscious of it when we're all posting in the same language, typeface, and text color.

It's worth noting that the major impetus for learning manners is often some form of positive punishment, more typically verbal these days, though physical discipline isn't completely out of vogue, sad as it may be.

When the condition of a tangible punishment that we can easily understand and anticipate is removed, we human beings tend toward the most intensely charged defense of our viewpoint we feel we can get away with.

Granting all that, I will close by saying that I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was cute. The next one will either have to address the concerns of those who want there to be more of a focus on ideas, or risk creating an unneccessary schism in a fandom that has seen quite a few schisms formed and healed already.

If JJ makes another action-fest he's going to lose my attention.

Even so, I'll give it to him; Into Darkness entertained me.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Wed, Jul 17, 2013, 4:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Gee, it's too bad you can't call security and have me removed from the ship and stranded on Delta Vega.

For my part, he could have turned his whole post into "shut up" and it would have had the same meaning.

I'm not feeling particularly welcome in this open to the whole Internet discussion anymore.

Live long and prosper.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Wed, Jul 17, 2013, 12:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

You will forgive me if, to the uninitiated ear, it sounds altogether like splitting hairs to me. I believe, in time more people will agree with me.

And just so no one tries this again with me, it's

"I find myself growing fatigued by this cross-examination."
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Tue, Jul 16, 2013, 11:24pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Every time I type the antispam message, I think to myself:

"GET AWAY FROM THAT LAUNCHER!!"

...More to the point, there were numerous logical errors in The Wrath Of Khan. Chekov not being in Space Seed is just the tip of the iceberg.

For starters, what kind of incredibly MORONIC body of governance approves a research project that can wipe out all life on a planet instantaneously, without then sending the Enterprise, the Excelsior, and maybe a couple of Borg Cubes to freaking GUARD the damn thing?

Also, this is more of a filmmaking issue, but why are Chekov and Terrell still aboard the Reliant during the scene that starts "Course to intercept Enterprise ready, sir?" Later Terrell says Khan went straight from Regula One to attack Enterprise. Aren't they supposed to have been stuffed in a locker prior to Joachim's first speaking scene?

In addition, Mike Okuda has pointed out that a 5 digit code is surprisingly breakable even by 1982 standards.

Kirk and Spock's subterfuge with the phrase "By the book" is not only kind of easy to figure out, but also recall that Khan reviewed all Starfleet procedures when he was reading the library computer way back in Space Seed.

But freaking James Horner just sells the damn thing like no tommorrow.

:)
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Tue, Jul 16, 2013, 11:55am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Look you're all absolutely right, it's just that because I've lived in the South for such a long time that I identify with Dr. McCoy more than I do with Spock! All I keep thinking is how G.D. LOGICAL you're all being!

"It's a SONG, you green blooded... Vulcan!! You sing it, the words aren't important, what's important is that you have a good time SINGING!"
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Mon, Jul 15, 2013, 11:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

It occurs to me to ask, what kind of dramatic, theatrical idea has the series not tried at this point?

Isn't it (pardon me, can't resist) logical that when the franchise is so packed with history, there would be enormous difficulties in trying to cover any new ground? Granting such a difficulty, which borders on impossibility, doesn't it make sense to have to basically do something, anything to make the film attractive to us all, the Trekkies, many of whom (myself among them) have quite literally seen it all?

I love this film. I've seen Star Trek make me cry, make me laugh, make me sweat with suspense, cringe at the agony of the human condition...

And now I've seen Star Trek acknowledge all of it, kick back, relax, and have a good time.

Can't wait to see it again.
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Mon, Jul 15, 2013, 11:24am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

First link comes up broken. Just wanted to say that I tried to read it.

Listen, the point I'm making is that whatever anyone else says from this point on, a glowing review in Variety more or less cements this film's status as a successful picture.

It actually strikes me as somewhat bizarre that people are complaining about the story in this movie basically being closer to the television show's presentational style than any of the previous movies.

It's been said that a significant degree of the Trekkies are averse to the idea of having a sense of humor; i.e., they're what's called "stuffy," "stolid." All this whining over what's clearly going to be a gargantuan hit for the franchise only serves to reinforce that idea in my mind.

As James Tiberius himself once said:

"Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Mon, Jul 15, 2013, 12:25am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

variety.com/2013/film/reviews/star-trek-into-darkness-review-1200442461/#!1/review-startrek_benedict/

Well that's /\ what Hollywood's most celebrated critical publication has to say.

I remember Shatner saying in Star Trek Movie Memories (pp. 334-335) that the first few reviews of Star Trek V were great, until Variety bashed it to pieces. After that, almost every other review followed suit.

So, with tongue firmly in cheek, I'll quote Lucy Liu from Kill Bill Vol. 1:

"...If any of you sons of @&$&@ got anything else to say, NOW'S THE @&$&@ TIME!!!!!"
Set Bookmark
CadetNorris
Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 5:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

I definitely want full duration in the agony booth for whatever patach demanded WILLIAM SHATNER to do "more humor."
Page 1 of 1
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.