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: 6 (Showing 1-6)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 9:44pm (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S1: Two Days and Two Nights

Choosing to view a relationship as one in which the other holds something of value that is to be gained is still a decision, and it inevitably leads to the encounter playing out to affirm that point of view. Looking for someone to blame for "withholding" sex serves that purpose nicely.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 11:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S1: Two Days and Two Nights

"5 stars on social commentary. Trek pretty much used this episode to tell us that women decide when you are getting any and that guys have to waste a lot of time to get any unless they get lucky and sometimes trying to get lucky gets you in trouble. "

Men decide that. That seems pretty clear when you begin to notice that the desire to complain about "not getting any" seems to be more important than the desire to "get any" itself.
Set Bookmark
Geordi La Forge
Sat, Nov 24, 2018, 12:52am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: The Mind's Eye

Set Bookmark
Thu, May 22, 2014, 11:26pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: The Visitor

Just recently watched ds9 for the first time on netflix. I always heard this episode was so moving and awesome. This episode was blah. I feel like people are told this episode is one of the best so they just go along with that. I can't believe people cried. More power to you if you did though. Nog a captain? Yeah right. and this episode focuses on jakes love of his dad. I appreciate that but this is also the same Sisko who was willing to let his son die so the wormhole aliens could use his body. They aren't gods. They are beings in a wormhole who he had to teach what linear time was and he's willing to let his son die. He didn't even say goodbye to jake in the last episode
Set Bookmark
Thu, Jul 4, 2013, 3:41pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

PS - not that I'm particularly fond of the idea of blindly re-making stuff from TOS, but it so happens that if they did remake something else, The Doomsday Machine would make a great movie.
Set Bookmark
Mon, May 27, 2013, 12:20am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Many of the comments above appear to be debating whether the plot makes sense as a whole, whether its delivery leaves enough space for emotion to seep through, and whether there is any depth to the storyline. I have gone to see this film twice now and had very different experiences which, I think, help to illustrate why this movie (and, indeed, both Trek 2009 and STID) is receiving such flak from some people and such admiration from others.


After the first watching, it takes a while to unwind the plot backwards, but after that it becomes fairly straightforward. I won't go into any detail (because it would take too long and because it's been looked at by many of you above), but suffice it to say the plot is an extremely intricate and mostly well-oiled machine. The machine moves very fast, and as a result is very, very distracting. Tied to the plot are a set of running comedy routines which, taken at their best, pay an homage to the comedy of the original TOS show, and, taken at their worst, form a shameless parody of it. Between these two, however, it is understandable that many people could not find an ounce of substance in the film, because so little time is allotted for characters to express emotions that aren't immediately turned either into laughs or interrupted by attackers.

So, I left the theater with the impression that A) the film was visually stunning, B) that there was a clear effort to create a believable future, C) that there was a certain amount of political commentary going on, and D) that the number of details fighting for attention demanded a second viewing. There were a lot of problems; for one thing, a lot of the references to old trek were extremely forced, as if the writers felt a compunction to design new scenarios into which they could insert classic dialogue or direct references. The "Needs of the many/few" bit at the beginning, while I agree it logically works, somehow failed emotionally, as did Spock's exclamation of "Khaaaaan!" upon Kirk's pseudo-death. Quite simply, while I could understand the logic of what was going on, I felt as if someone had gone up to a whiteboard, said, "Okay, who is Spock?" and then listed a few one-word attributes before moving on to the next character.


And... yeah, it got better! Because I knew generally what was going on, I didn't have to focus on unraveling exactly what big thing was going on in each scene, but could focus on the little things. And there are a lot of little things. Take the scene with the officer whose daughter is dying; we are treated to a lot of information about him and his family, as well as little pieces of the wider world. He walks into a building labelled "Kelvin Memorial Archive," a nice bit of continuity I didn't catch the first time; the world he inhabits has a sadness to it that is really strong, and the second time around I could say, "oh, that's Khan, who knows his blood has convenient medicinal purposes and has found a way to use this to push his agenda." This makes logical sense, and gives us an idea of Khan's cunning planning.

Then there are the torpedoes, which many people above seem to be wondering about. The first time around, it seems like a cheap James Bond-type presentation of gadgetry; here is your mission and here's this extra-special missile. On closer inspection, however, and with the whole plot in mind, we see that Section 31 is using Kirk to simultaneously kill Khan and all of his crew - and yes, they did know that the crew was in the tubes, because Khan explains that he was caught in the process of sealing his people in (By the way, I'm not entirely certain that bringing 31 into this was a good idea. Like everything else, it makes sense, but in this case it makes it too easy to pretend that the evils were confined to just a few people, and therefore not as important).

A lot of the film is like that - on the first viewing, it can be quite off-kilter, and because it moves so fast and through so many twists and turns it's hard to rationalize what's going on. On closer inspection, however, it turns out to work, and, more importantly, the emotions get a lot clearer. While I still thought the scene with Kirk dying on the inside of the reactor was horrifyingly overwrought (I have thus far been steadfastly endeavoring not to directly compare this movie to The Wrath of Khan, but I'll make an exception here - the original was infinitely more powerful because there was no necessary preamble, and the dialogue wasn't as awkward or drawn-out as it is here in STID. In the original, the basic conversation was laid out at the beginning of the film, when Spock tells Kirk that the good of the many outweighs the good of the one - so when we see it again, the exact words of the conversation are fairly quick and can take the backseat to Kirk's horror at Spock's rapidly deteriorating condition. In STID, Kirk and Spock just stare at each other and talk - and then keep talking - and then keep talking - and at last Kirk goes unconscious and Spock, who has already demonstrated more than enough emotion to satisfy what the scene is trying to say, shouts Khan's name. The writing is very poor there), in general, the film has a good number of good emotional scenes. The confrontation between Kirk and Pike is done perfectly - Kirk thinks he can just talk his way out of punishment, but Pike is fed up with that kind of thinking so they talk over one another for a while - this is handled superbly and fits into what Kirk has been developing into. The tensions between Spock and Uhura initially looked like an excuse to insert two wonderful gags ("Are you two guys fighting? What's that even like?" and "Is this going to be a problem?" "Unclear") but morphed into a way to show that Spock is responding to the destruction of his planet by shutting himself off even more than usual.

(I'd say I promise no more tangents,but that's unlikely and I have to add - in general, the writing for Spock in this movie is great - he delivers a deadpan, non-emotional statement, and someone in his vicinity responds with an ironic emotional outburst. It's great. Every now and then, though, there are lines that just sound out of place - lines which sound childishly simplistic in the midst of an otherwise expansive vocabulary - for example, "a reflection of my not caring" sounds odd because "reflection" and "not caring" don't coexist very well. Similarly, when Spock says, "I do not know [how to turn off my emotions]. Right now I am feeling," I had the sudden urge to begin laughing at how unnecessary that second sentence was - I mean, the guy was crying, how much more do you feel you have to add)

We are also treated to a lot of characterizations which allow us to see characters from many different angles. Admiral Marcus, for example, is not merely a paranoid military-type; after the attack by Nero, he goes out into deep space looking for tactical advantages against whoever might come next - and finds Khan.

Khan is, understandably, deeply enraged by the fact that his crew is being held hostage to force him to work for 31, so we get some development there (someone above mentioned that Commodore Decker would have been a better villain here. This movie could have been so much more if that was the case; maybe they went out and found the Doomsday Machine, tried to harness it, and failed; we could A) have an excuse to ONLY analyze one villain, Marcus-Decker instead of Marcus & Khan, and B) have a legitimate excuse to build another ship many times the size of the enterprise and then blow it up). I will say, with some hesitation, that this is a more subtle and human interpretation of Khan than the original, even if, at the same time, he seems more powerful and intimidating.

IN CONCLUSION, I'll predict that this film stands up to scrutiny better over the long term than Trek 2009 will. Part of why it's so easy to worry that the new films have plot lines too deeply tangled and complex to allow for emotion is that when we first see them, the plot is not yet clear. Later, however, we can see each element for what it is, and begin to see if the whole thing is cohesive. And - yeah, this is a nicely assembled whole. It has a few glitches in the writing, and certainly is trying too hard to reference other Trek, but that is probably a phase. After all, Star Trek The Motion Picture spent it's whole duration trying to be The Original Series in a movie - what made Wrath of Khan effective was the feel of continuation, rather than re-iteration. And hopefully, this new franchise will see that establishing a continuous development of new ideas rather than simply being content to joke about old ones is the way to go.

It's a good movie. Go see it if you haven't, and if you don't like it, I'll bet it's because the machinery (sorry, plot) is stealing too much of the spotlight the first time round.
Page 1 of 1
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 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. Terms of use.