Rogue Reviews thread [Read-only] [SPOILERS, no doubt]

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

As I said when the first rumours cropped up, he'll be a different Khan but a fantastic one. And he was.

I actually preferred Khanberbatch to Montelkhan.

 

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

Oh boy the puns are back!

 

Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

I winced at "Khaaannn". Perhaps I should have yelled "AAAABRRAAAMMMMSSSSS!" at the time.

Oooh it's tempting to go again...

I clapped (silently) at Nimoy though

As for numbers seeing it -- I saw it in 2D Thursday afternoon at my local theatre. It was on in 2D 14 times, and 3D 21 times, during the day. I took about the 5th showing of the 2D at 15:00, so I wouldn't expect a crowded screen. I believe most people's jobs aren't as flexible as mine

 

Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

Now, I want to preface this by saying I haven't seen the film yet, I will next week when it hits the states of course. But is the reason that people are complaining about the Khannn moment in this film, is because the Khannnn moment in TWOK, has essentially in the world of pop culture now, become kind of a joke? I've known about the plot for end of the film for a few weeks, and while it took a few minutes to digest, I feel like if it works within the context of the film in a vacuum, then I will have no problem with that. The people I have seen who dislike the scene, are people who know TWOK, and know the original ending. From others who have seen it, and aren't huge Trek fans, they seem to have no issue. I'll wait judge the filmmakers on the scene until I have watched the film, and whether it was a good scene or not. I'm just putting the question out there of, are people upset because it's bad filmmaking WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS FILM, or is it because they don't like the harkening back to TWOK?

 

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

In an homage to TAS, he should have played the genetically engineered human scientist Stavos Keniclius, the "master" to a batch of sentient alien cucumbers (a "Cumberbatch," if you will), who have lost their gourd and are trying to impose peace on the galaxy with an army of augment clones.

M. Night Shyamalan says that movies about hostile plants traditionally dominate at the box office and are always highly critically acclaimed.

 

Re: directors cut of into darkness

It felt kind of rushed to me. They ran from one plot point to the next so fast as if the movie happened in real time. There was no sense of time passing between the important scenes. That's probably why the trip to Kronos felt like minutes. Khan did not have enough time to build up the suspense surrounding his character, he didn't have enough time to play with Kirk and Spock. And once Admiral Marcus had been found out, he got killed. And so on ... in a way, this movie is the exact opposite of TMP.

 

Re: directors cut of into darkness

Isn't the version you see in the theater the "directors cut"?

Q2

 

Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

So. This is just a remake of a movie I saw thirty years ago? The best movie of the Trek series, and one that definitely didn't need to be remade?

Am no longer in a hurry to see this.

 

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

Gary Mitchell.

One who was never befriended by Kirk. Weaponised by Section 31 to increase his powers to include bio-feeback for strength and heightened senses.

A Gary Mitchell who feels the Universe screaming in his head that something is wrong and he doesn't know what. Only knowing that the Federation is not strong enough to face something in the dark reaches of space ( Borg? Pai Waiths? the Dominion Etc) and is desperate to make it ready through a trail of fire ( ie war with the klingons, romulans anything to make the Federation more battle ready)

 

Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

They awoke Khan because Section 31 wanted someone to develop weapons? This was a WTF moment for me. Did I hear that right? Also 300 years old means he was exiled in 1959? Should've said 200 years.

Agreed that Khan should not have made an appearance. Should've been a different exile. Maybe one called John Harrison? We could've got a glimpse of Montalban in a tube or something.

The TWOK ripoff moments did not sit well with me, I feel that if I had not seen TWOK it would have been fine. I could only think about how it's already been done much better before and it did not or should not be done again. I couldn't wait for the whole sequence to be over! Insane decision by the scriptwriters who are clearly insane anyway

Need to see the movie again ASAP. Perhaps it will be better on the second viewing.

 

Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

No, it's not a remake.

Why not just see it now? If you're willing to fly Economy (shudder), you can get the 18:20 from JFK on Virgin, arrive nice and early Saturday morning, watch the film a couple of times, then hop on the 14:00 Sunday back to JFK, all for under $1000

"300 years" is about right. 250 years is more of a mouthful. 200 years is nowhere near when Khan was exiled.

 

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

Because I like him, and I like Khan.

 

Re: Nibiru

You're conflating two very different issues. I don't think anyone is defending the idea of intentionally publicly interfering with a culture's development and imposing yourself or your belief system/values on them. Secrecy should be maintained at all costs unless it is impossible to do so. They're simply defending the idea that saving a species from extinction is more important than preserving their developmental isolation at all costs, especially when they won't have any more development if you do nothing.

The OP is saying it would be better to let a species die than to interfere to save them at all, even if you can save them in secret without exposing yourself. Bringing up evangelizing and colonization is a misrepresentation of people's arguments against the OP's comment, since no one is defending those things.

Now, obviously, raising the Enterprise from the water and exposing it to the natives to save Spock from the volcano is taking things further and violating the other less morally bankrupt non-interference clauses of the Prime Directive, but that's not what the OP was talking about in his final paragraph. I think you can make a perfectly rational argument (and indeed, Spock does exactly that) that sacrificing a single crew member who voluntarily chose to risk his life as a member of Starfleet and on this mission specifically in order to prevent the species being exposed to culturally contaminating advanced technology is a worthy cause.

How is that not playing God by saying that species who have developed radio communications with enough power to reach deep space are more valuable and worthy of saving than species who have not?

If it all hinges on the species giving consent to be saved for you, then I'm sure there are ways of posing a hypothetical scenario about intervention to stop their demise to the leaders of the species in question without revealing too much information about who and what you are.

And what if they go on to eventually develop a method of saving the galaxy from the Borg or another species/event? What if they develop some beneficial technology or are amazingly successful peacemakers who end millennia of conflict among other species? You're absolutely right that there's no way to know how they will develop, but that's no excuse to only assume the negative.

Also, speaking of the Borg, they serve as a sort of cleaning crew for the galaxy. Every time a species or culture becomes too powerful or advanced, the Borg come in and assimilate or destroy them and essentially sweep them out of the way, thus allowing countless other less developed species to rise in their place where they previously might have been marginalized in their shadow or conquered by them. Now, as long as the Borg don't come to dominate the galaxy all by themselves, they might actually often serve a beneficial role for the development of younger species from time to time, much the same way a forest fire burns away old trees and brush but also enriches the soil and makes way for new trees and shrubs to grow. Now obviously, the older species aren't going to see it this way as they're assimilated and their demise is no less tragic, but it's all a matter of perspective.

Anyway, my point is, like you said, there's no way to predict the future outcome of saving a species from extinction. But where you think that means you should not interfere at all, I think the moral thing to do in the here and now, which is the only thing you can see and manipulate clearly, is to save a species from extinction if you have the capability to do so. Anything else is callous.

 

Re: Spocks line *Major Major Spoilers*

'Anyway, maybe it came pretty close to farcical, but it didn't ruin the movie for this viewer.'

Seems like the definition of a successful popcorn movie is when it fails almost every conventional metric of being a good movie, and yet people still give it good reviews.

 

Re: Spocks line *Major Major Spoilers*

No.

Is there a more vacuous phrase than "conventional metrics of being a good movie?" It's impressive sounding, but free of content.

 

First name basis [SPOILERS]

I think I mentioned this before but I don't think the bulk of the core characters should be on a first name basis yet.

An example being the 'WWSD' clip where Kirk is talking to Chekov and says he needs to beam 'Spock' back to the ship. He's talking to a subordinate and should refer to Spock as Commander Spock. There are a few other moments in the new clips and the first film where they refer to each other by name.

Kirk and Bones, when talking to each other are OK (IMO) to refer to each other by name. Their rank and friendship make this appropriate. The others have not known each other long enough to forgo addressing their superiors correctly. They need to work up to that familiarity. Again, IMO.

Just a little something that bugs me. lol

 

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

It was that bad and you couldn't wait to leave?