RLM - Half in the Bag does STID [SPOILERS]

And since this thread is about RLM, they understand that concept very much as well. They nitpicked the shit out of The Dark Knight Rises, but they also both loved the movie.

So yeah, the nitpicks themselves don't exactly have all the bearing on whether or not they think it's a great film. There's more to it than that. Maybe it's more worth trying to define exactly what that is rather than nitpicking.

 

The issue is, is that the supposed legitimate criticisms always have to do with the supposed dumb plots, contrived conveniences, bad science, and the action first scripts. If someone doesn't like the movie, then fine they don't like it. It's an opinion. However, as many of these films detractors here and online do, they list those reasons why they don't like it or its not "real" Star Trek (like they get to decide what that is or isn't anyway). But the issue with their argument is, is that the original show and movies on which this reboot was based have THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. And for some reason, you can ignore those issues, but when it comes the the reboots, because you don't like how they were done, they are now "legitimate criticizes".

I love TOS. I love the reboot films. They also have some of the same flaws, which many members here seem to conveniently ignore for the sake of their rant against JJ and company, because the direction that was taken isn't what they wanted.

 

This is true. There are plenty of critically and commercially terrible movies that I like. Heck, I quite liked The Avengers (the one based on the 60's TV series)

 

I would like to know how a balding, middle-aged man hurling Styrofoam rocks at another guy in a green rubber suit is in any way intellectually provocative.

 

I think at times Star Trek could really make you think. But it definitely wasn't the majority of the time. The majority of the time if was just fun action-adventure with really cool spaceships.

 

Exactly.

I don't know why people act like it was effing Dostoevsky or Kafka.

Even "The Cage" ultimately came to blows.

Certainly non of the films (Save maybe the first one) were all that cerebral. Sure, they all offered a philosophical argument and promoted an agenda, but so did STiD.

 

Urgh, no-one's doing that. Ever.

In many cases, the 'cerebral' nature of TOS is directly proportional to one's opinion of STID or at least it's relative.

Besides, why is someone acting 'like it was effing Dostoevsky' a bad thing? Are we not allowed to discover and discuss in depth analysis and deeper meanings any more?

 

I don't think anyone here has written that "Trek was always dumb." What has been pointed out however, is that Star Trek has frequently had plots that included lots of silliness and lots of action, and that criticizing nuTrek for that and denying that it was there in original Trek looks ridiculous.

Star Trek was never primarily cerebral, hard science fiction. It's had elements of that at times, but the majority of the time it's been space fantasy/adventure oriented.

 

http://redlettermedia.com/mr-plinkett-star-trek-into-reference/

Short Plinkett video. SPOILERS AHOY.

 

If you're referring to the Gorn episode in TOS I believe there were other aspects to the story to make you think. In later Star Trek series it seems that the Federation was always right and noble and never did anything wrong.

In this episode the Federation were technically wrong - invading another species territory. Kirk had to take this into consideration when he gave mercy to the Gorn.
There are parallels on Earth, in the 60s, 70s and now.

If you push everything down into men in rubber suits and aliens with the ridge of the week or a man dressed up with yellow paint all over him and coloured contacts then how can you enjoy any Trek.

 

I enjoyed the Half in the Bag review, but this was just painful. I'm going to pretend that this video doesn't exist and wait for the inevitable full length review from Plinkett.

 

Khan had every intention of killing Kirk; or have you forgotten this line:

KHAN
Surely I have made my meaning plain.
I mean to avenge myself upon you,
Admiral. I've deprived your ship of
power and when I swing round I mean
to deprive you of your life --
-- But I wanted you to know first
who it was who had beaten you.

 

No, I didn't forget. I know the film by heart. That was earlier in the film. He makes it very clear his intentions changed after the first engagement. He actually clues you into this in the exchange right after Tyrell kills himself. Kirk says to Khan over the communicator "Khan you blood sucker, you're gonna have to do your own dirty work now do you hear me? Do you!" With surprise, Khan says "Kirk, you're still alive my old friend." Kirk bitterly shoots back "Still. Old. Friend. You've managed to kill just about everyone else but like a poor marksman you keep missing the target!"

and then Khan says "Perhaps I no longer need to try admiral." That line alone tells you that Khan has changed his initial plans around in his mind.

After beaming up the torpedo, "Khan, you've got Genesis, but you don't have me. You were going to kill me, Khan. You're going to have to come down here. You're going to have to come down here!" Kirk tries to get Khan to refocus on the simple act of killing him. To which Khan says...

"I've done far worse than kill you... I've hurt you, and I wish to go on hurting you. Marooned for all eternity at the center of a dead planet. Buried alive... Buried alive..."

You see, the point is very clear in the film. Khan says "I wanted you to know first who it was who had beaten you." But Kirk was the one who beat beat Khan in that first engagement. Khan's need to BEAT Kirk is beyond simply killing him. Khan has to best Kirk, make him face it, and then end him. Anybody can just kill someone. That's not particularly interesting. Khan's need for Kirk to SEE defeat ties back into Kirk's arc of aging, and never having faced a situation he couldn't trick or fox his way out of.

 

Khan's motivations change because they couldn't get the actors together. He tells Terrell to kill Kirk just a moment earlier. Unfortunately, the writers forgot that Khan could've used the transporter to snag Kirk just as easily as it snagged Genesis. In movie, Khan had lost to Kirk yet again by failing to kill him. So he moved the goal posts.

So we have his desires shift in literally the same scene.

 

Big

The people here that act like they are too good (basically too snobbish and stuck-up) to watch (oh no what a sin!) a review/commentary on the film instead of reading and typing about it....