RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,540
Posts: 5,513,192
Members: 25,142
Currently online: 481
Newest member: lergondo

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
A+ 144 19.20%
A 161 21.47%
A- 101 13.47%
B+ 83 11.07%
B 59 7.87%
B- 27 3.60%
C+ 40 5.33%
C 38 5.07%
C- 25 3.33%
D+ 11 1.47%
D 13 1.73%
D- 10 1.33%
F 38 5.07%
Voters: 750. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 4 2013, 06:21 PM   #4036
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Franklin wrote: View Post
As Belz said, there are people who can find any reason to be outraged about anything.
This is outrageous.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 06:25 PM   #4037
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Wait, back up. I'm confused.

Who are we saying should be offended and outraged by this movie now?
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 06:50 PM   #4038
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Everyone should find a reason.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 07:11 PM   #4039
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Some already had before the movie was even made...
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 08:46 PM   #4040
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
It's not Shakespearean days. It's not the 1960s. That's the point.
So, suddenly, all actors must restrict their skills set? Where do the restrictions end? Is the new rule skin colour and ethnicity only, or is it every other human variation?

For centuries actors have used a huge range of chameleon-like skills, but now they must remain within their own physical type?

Marina Sirtis - a British actor of Greek descent, based in USA, and known to us for playing a half-Betazoid alien - recently accepted a role in "NCIS", Orli Elbaz of the Israeli intelligence organization, Mossad. Sirtis uses yet another accent not her own, expands her skill set, and is quite convincing. But she should have stepped away from the part and let it go to a genuine Israeli actress?

One of the most praised stage roles is "The Elephant Man" by Bernard Pomerance, which won a Tony Award for Best Play in 1979. The production opted not to recreate John Merrick's physical deformities with makeup but to have the leading actor (including both Mark Hamill and David Bowie) play the role barefaced, so that Merrick's humanity, not monstrosity, would be emphasized. (I guess you'll say this isn't 1979, but acting without specialized makeup is a specific acting skill.)

Acting also comes from within. Physical appearance is just one element, and just because a particular acting performance is going to be on the big screen, why should we suddenly start restricting the actor's craft in one category?

I'm still not understanding why Benedict Cumberbatch has done a disservice to all swarthy male actors of the world by accepting the part of John Harrison, nor why JJ Abrams has committed a crime by hiring who he felt had given the best audition.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Therin of Andor; June 4 2013 at 09:01 PM. Reason: more
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 09:10 PM   #4041
Squiggy Claus
Rampant Sexist
 
Squiggy Claus's Avatar
 
Location: Up Squiggy's Coal Chute.
View Squiggy Claus's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy Claus
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Belz... wrote: View Post
Everyone should find a reason.
That's an outrageous assertion.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy Claus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 09:45 PM   #4042
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
"Abrams re-enacts 9/11 in Star Trek movie!"
The strangest part about this comment is that he pretty much did. Khan crashed his spaceship into San Francisco, killing who knows how many people (which was just brushed aside really), yet the movie was dedicated to 9/11 vets? That particular part strikes me as somewhat odd already, and then you say that all it takes is for Khan to be brown to make that actually controversial? Ok...
It's obviously a non-subtle 9-11/War on Terror/drone strike allegory, but there's a big difference between having similar but different events happen to make a point and directly implicating a brown-skinned man who ruled the Middle East and South Asia for the fictional crime. The backlash against that would have been huge. Making it a genetically engineered pasty white British guy is not going to insult any minorities by showing them still being depicted as terrorists even 300 years in the future.

Not to mention the fallout from emphasizing that the perpetrator is a Sikh given the amount of harassment and attacks Sikhs have had to endure post-9/11 by ignorant assholes who think they're Muslims (not that it would be right to harass or attack Muslims either). People would be (rightfully) upset about it, and the outrage would far exceed any of this nonsense about whitewashing a character that was already played by a white man of European descent once before. It's a no-win situation.

Since the decision had already been made to go with a terrorism and responding out of fear and revenge allegory, emphasizing a brown-skinned Khan, the region he dominated, and his religious background would become a liability. Now, they could have just chosen not to go with Khan (since the rogue Starfleet operative story predated the decision to use Khan), but then you have the problem of the movie not having a hook to attract audiences in the form of Trek's most famous established villain. Could they have done it and still made a blockbuster? Possibly. But it's a greater risk, and studios don't like to take big risks when they're investing hundreds of millions of dollars.

On a separate note, people keep saying that they just "brushed aside" the destruction in San Francisco, but I don't understand what they're looking for here. Did they want them to tack on an extra half an hour to deal solely with the aftermath of the crash? Can't people pretty much extrapolate what will happen for themselves without having it explicitly spelled out? Lots of searching through rubble, lots of funerals and memorials, and then the rebuilding process begins. They showed a memorial to the fallen, they made it a poignant moment by using actual soldiers deployed overseas post-9/11, they made a 9/11 vets dedication, and the story itself was a 9/11/War on Terror allegory. What else should they have done?

PS: There was just an earthquake here as I was typing this up.
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 10:10 PM   #4043
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: The corner of San Antonio and a bottle of Fireball
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
PS: There was just an earthquake here as I was typing this up.
Sounds like you had a *groundbreaking* good time!

YEEEEEEAH!
__________________
I'm not saying it's cold, but I just keyed two cars with my nipples.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 10:28 PM   #4044
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Not to mention the fallout from emphasizing that the perpetrator is a Sikh given the amount of harassment and attacks Sikhs have had to endure post-9/11 by ignorant assholes who think they're Muslims (not that it would be right to harass or attack Muslims either). People would be (rightfully) upset about it, and the outrage would far exceed any of this nonsense about whitewashing a character that was already played by a white man of European descent once before. It's a no-win situation.
Did I mention I hate PC ? We basically have to stick to white villains, now.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 10:38 PM   #4045
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
It's not Shakespearean days. It's not the 1960s. That's the point.
So, suddenly, all actors must restrict their skills set?
In response to the Shakespeare boys and girls nonsense, yes. With the world being as big as it is and the pool of talent being as wide and diverse as it is, agencies could afford to hire people who specialize.

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
It's a no-win situation.

[...]

the decision had already been made to go with a terrorism

[...]

they could have just chosen not to go with Khan, but then you have the problem of the movie not having a hook to attract audiences in the form of Trek's most famous established villain
Sorry, I just kinda spliced up your post here so as to not make a huge wall of text response here, but these are the points I feel like addressing.

Khan never really struck me as a terrorist anyways. I find this characterization of him somewhat odd. That they put him in such a role and don't think about the consequences of that doesn't really strike me as a no-win situation. The answer is simple: don't use Khan, or don't turn him into a terrorist.

People kept saying before the movie, and somehow keep insisting that Khan is a big deal to reps and hooking audiences, but he's supposed to be a secret! He's not even marketed as Khan. Maybe if they spent the time playing up that this was Khan more instead of playing the whole secrecy angle (which really was nothing more than fan service), then there'd be a point to the whole marketability thing.


As to the "brushed aside" destruction, it's mostly because it just feels like it's done for the cool factor and that it's just all very casual, much like urban destruction in your typical Hollywood fare (Avengers, Transformers, Batman, etc). It's not like it's anything new to fiction where the main characters are invested much more in their personal melodramas when there are thousands of lives in jeopardy, so you're right in that. Still, it just feels odd.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 11:16 PM   #4046
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
As to the "brushed aside" destruction, it's mostly because it just feels like it's done for the cool factor and that it's just all very casual, much like urban destruction in your typical Hollywood fare (Avengers, Transformers, Batman, etc). It's not like it's anything new to fiction where the main characters are invested much more in their personal melodramas when there are thousands of lives in jeopardy, so you're right in that. Still, it just feels odd.
We never really got the full aftermath of the loss of six billion Vulcans, for that matter. In some ways, that bothers me more.

I will say this about movies that destroy cities or large parts of them (and apparently we'll see some more of that in "The Man of Steel"), post-9/11 I don't think there's a "cool factor" to it, any more. It does feel odd, too. It's also too sanitized, given what we saw in New York. Where are all the clouds of dust? The fires? The rush of air and the flow of debris and smoke running through the streets for blocks and blocks? In STID, the Vengeance finally stops, and Khan jumps off into clear blue SF skies and exits down clean streets. We know it wouldn't be that way. It's so much messier. Much more horrible.

If they didn't want to linger on it, as Spock left for the Enterprise, they could've at least done a shot back to the path of destruction. Just a wide shot over Spock's shoulder as he glimpses back at it, himself. Something to show this was not just comic-bookish plowing through buildings for the "cool effect," but there were real consequences. It would've made the memorial scene later even more poignant.

Just my opinion.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2013, 12:07 AM   #4047
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Belz... wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Not to mention the fallout from emphasizing that the perpetrator is a Sikh given the amount of harassment and attacks Sikhs have had to endure post-9/11 by ignorant assholes who think they're Muslims (not that it would be right to harass or attack Muslims either). People would be (rightfully) upset about it, and the outrage would far exceed any of this nonsense about whitewashing a character that was already played by a white man of European descent once before. It's a no-win situation.
Did I mention I hate PC ? We basically have to stick to white villains, now.
Yes, you've mentioned that, and no, we don't "have to" stick to white villains (there are plenty of brown-skinned terrorists, criminals, and villains depicted in TV, books, games, and movies). But why do you have to stick with a brown-skinned terrorist 300 years in the future when it's a completely different context from present day Middle Eastern terrorism? Why do you have to stick with a brown-skinned villain when Khan has already been played by a white man of European descent and was shown with his natural white skin (sans skin darkening makeup) in TWoK? Why do you have to stick with a brown-skinned terrorist when no actual historical terrorist incident is being depicted?

PC would be turning the actual 9/11 hijackers into white neo-Nazis in a made-for TV movie or something. Making a fictional terrorist in a fictional bombing in a fictional future universe a white guy instead of a brown-skinned man is not PC, or at least not anything worth being bothered by. The technical term for a lot of the stuff that gets criticized as political correctness is "not being an asshole." There's no important justification to make the terrorist a brown-skinned man in this case or evoking images of Sikhs being involved in terrorism when they've already suffered from being falsely accused of it in recent years. I'm perfectly fine with Star Trek not going out of its way to offend people needlessly.

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Khan never really struck me as a terrorist anyways. I find this characterization of him somewhat odd. That they put him in such a role and don't think about the consequences of that doesn't really strike me as a no-win situation. The answer is simple: don't use Khan, or don't turn him into a terrorist.
Well, it depends. The vague comments about him being a loveable tyrant in Space Seed and TWoK didn't specifically paint him as a terrorist (nor do they rule it out), though to gain control over so much territory in such a short time he might have resorted to those tactics.

In Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars books, Khan's allies used nerve gas to target a rival leader in a terrorist attack and Khan attempted to use biological warfare to get revenge on the people of Earth. The writers of the film have said that they're fans of and are inspired by the tie-in fiction on multiple occasions.

People kept saying before the movie, and somehow keep insisting that Khan is a big deal to reps and hooking audiences, but he's supposed to be a secret! He's not even marketed as Khan. Maybe if they spent the time playing up that this was Khan more instead of playing the whole secrecy angle (which really was nothing more than fan service), then there'd be a point to the whole marketability thing.
It was only a "secret" in that they didn't openly promote it, but it was pretty obvious among fan circles who the villain was and would be spread by spoiler reviews and word of mouth to the general public once the movie premiered.
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2013, 01:04 AM   #4048
throwback
Captain
 
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

In the original Space Seed, it is stated:

In 1993, a group of these young supermen did seize power simultaneously in over forty nations.
We know later that some of these nations were in Asia and the Middle East.

There are many historical examples of coup d'etats where terrorism wasn't used. Wikipedia describes the coup d'etat and lists both successful and unsuccessful ones. A number of coup d'etats were orchestrated by the military, so it's conceivable to me that people like Khan were able to convince the military leaders of weak nations, as one could find in Asia and Middle East, to join his cause and overthrow an existing government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coups_d%27%C3%A9tat

Khan wasn't depicted as a lovable dictator. Yet, he wasn't depicted as a murderous dictator either. This interpretation came up later.

(Space Seed is quite clear on Khan not being a murderous dictator when Scotty said:

There were no massacres under his rule.
)
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2013, 01:16 AM   #4049
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Yes, you've mentioned that, and no, we don't "have to" stick to white villains [...] But why do you have to stick with a brown-skinned terrorist 300 years in the future when it's a completely different context from present day Middle Eastern terrorism?
Well, to echo what you just said, we don't "have to" stick to brown villains. First off, Khan wasn't a terrorist. His target was a military installation both times.

Second I'm just saying that IF they chose a causasian in order to be PC, it's silly. I don't think they did, personally.

Why do you have to stick with a brown-skinned villain when Khan has already been played by a white man of European descent and was shown with his natural white skin (sans skin darkening makeup) in TWoK? Why do you have to stick with a brown-skinned terrorist when no actual historical terrorist incident is being depicted?
Woah, I didn't say any of that.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2013, 01:23 AM   #4050
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

Belz... wrote: View Post
His target was a military installation both times.
That doesn't, in and of itself, exclude him from being considered a terrorist.

However, and moreover, Khan was purported to have been responsible for an attack on a branch of Federation Archives, supposedly not a military target. Khan was thereby accused of being a terrorist. The "drone strike" was ordered to punish that alleged crime, which was in fact a false charge, because the building attacked wasn't really an archive.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
benedict cumberbatch, grading & discussion, jj abrams

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.