Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by King Daniel Beyond, Nov 18, 2012.
1. Was it any good?
2. Do Spock and Uhura stay together?
So what if it is great and they break up?
What would you call great?
If someone answers your questions with yes, it was a great movie and yes they break up. You said you were going to ask people who had seen it.
What I would call great is probably very generous. I'm not expecting this movie to have the emotional impact that ST:XI had for me because that was right up there with ANH, blowing my mind and rewriting my love glands. That doesn't happen every decade. But I am still ever ready to call stuff great because I have a huge enjoyment of this universe.
I interpreted it in the same way.
As for Quinto not sounding too enthusiastic about the movie, I think that part of the reason is JJ's secrecy and the fact that the actors can't really talk about what's gonna happen in the movie.
Pine is repeating the same things over and over talking about the safe plot (BC being the villain is not spoiler) but in the end he is saying nothing, he sounds like someone who is desperately trying to find something to talk about when asked about the movie.
It must be really frustrating for them all especially for someone like Zachary Quinto who usually likes to talk about his characters in detail. I mean, the interviews are already boring and repetitive for them, imagine not having something to actually talk about. Perhaps, they shouldn't keep asking them the same questions well knowing that they can't answer, for now.
When they talk about the movie being "bolder" I too tend to think about one of the main cast dying -- and the dress uniforms really do seem like something they'd wear for a funeral --
In the set pictures we saw Spock, Kirk, Chekov and Scotty wearing that uniform though, so we could exclude these characters.
Theoretically, anyone could die here including Spock but:
Spock already died in the prime universe. If the writers really want to make something different and their own star trek, re-making the same storyline would be a big risk.
Also, after all the talk about the Kirk/Spock's friendship, killing one of them now would be stupid. They aren't even friends, yet.
They could kill off Uhura and give Spock manpain but:
- she's the only main female character and she's a woman of color, THIS woman of color in particular with everything her character had represented in the original series and the time when it was made. They could kill her yes, but it could be perceived as gross and sexist to kill her especially after all the talk about her getting more space than TOS Uhura.
- Enough with Spock drama. His mother died in the first movie and his home planet got destroyed. You kill his girlfriend too, now? What's next? His suicide? And It's not like his character isn't already complex, you don't need to kill his whole family and friends to give him "manpain". The poor man is drama with legs.
There are other characters there, and perhaps it's time to give some dramatic plot to the others too (if it is really necessary).
They won't kill her, there are already too few women.
They will give him manpain because they have been giving Spock manpain since TOS. Only this time instead of Zarabeth turning her back on him walking into the past it will be Uhura turning her back on him OR Spock having to give up Uhura for the needs of the many.
There will be manpain because that's how you show his humanity.
or even if they don't kill her, they may put her in a great danger in a way that he thinks that it's his fault and will feel guilty=drama (this had been my impression from the comics anyway, she's worried about him and she already saved his butt once)
We have covered the possibilities LOL
But I stand to my original point that there are other characters here and Spock can't be their only option to have dramatic plots. Her has his "manpain" already after what happened in the first movie and he will have to deal with that, regardless if one of the scenarios we have thought about S/U will happen or not.
That is interesting.
I don't think he sounds desperate at all. He's just good at making vague and general statements and talking about peripherals. What he hasn't done is to say something that causes unnecessary headlines and discussions to pop-up all over the place, and unfortunatley, Zachary's done this a few times. That's all I can say. "Cumberbatch's instrument" is the closest he's probably come to this, and even that wasn't taken seriously.
I'm not sure how frustrating it can be to just say something, when asked, like "I'm sorry, but I can't talk about it right now. It was a fulfilling experience and I'm excited about it, but I can't give you any details." End of story. I'm not sure that Zachary is frustrated, and none of the other actors seem frustrated. Most of them just aren't talking.
This would be asking reporters/the entertainment industry to not be reporters/the entertainment industry. Even if they could answer questions in detail, they are going to be answering the same questions. So, it's no surprise to me that while they can't answer questions in detail, it just so happens that they can't answer the same questions again and again. That's why I think it would be good to just have a little pre-packaged response so as to not cause a frenzy.
Someone probably will die. It could be new Spock or someone else. I don't think it would be sexist to kill Uhura, just a bad idea. I liked the team. Who knows what they are going to do with them.
This does not sound great, but I could be wrong.
But is this really an issue in the real world, outside the fannish bubble? I haven't seen any headlines in Entertainment Weekly or USA Today or any sort of mainstream press, so it's not really "all over the place."
At worst, this is just a momentary tempest in a teapot. I wouldn't even know about it if I hadn't dropped in on this thread. As far as I know, there's no negative buzz about this film outside the usual fannish anxiety.
(Remember how "organic webshooters" were going to doom the first Spider-Man movie? In the end, that "controversy" had no impact on the movie's popularity whatsoever.)
Was Science Fiction ever a real issue in the real world? It's supposed to be entertainment with a point. At least that's how I see it.
"All over the place" is relative. Btw, I don't read Entertainment Weekly or USA Today. Mainstream press isn't covering the new movie yet, and that's why if you look 1-3 pages back, I said that before heavy press/promotion starts, it would be good to have a team huddle and start calling some plays so that he's not making "ending eras of association" comments and such that would be "mistaken" at that time. My point was that one could consider the rippling headlines in Science Fiction publications/sites the canary in the coalmine, if you will.
But, it's up to them. I mentioned before that Zachary, and really all of them, can say whatever he likes and people will take that how they take it.
Same here. I found out about this quote from this thread. I don't watch or care about AHS, and I don't check Trekweb everyday. As for no negative buzz, well I hope you are right and that it stays that way.
No, I don't. So there, you do have a point. (But, I also had absolutely no interest in seeing TAS, FWIW.)
EDIT: Sorry, fast reading. I just saw that you said the first Spider-Man movie. Still, you do have a point, but I also don't recall Toby McGuire reportedly making statements about the character's possible demise before the film even came out. And I'm not saying that would have hurt the film either, though.
Let me rephrase that. By "real world," I meant the general public and mainstream media. As opposed to the hothouse atmosphere of, say, Trek message boards. I wasn't talking about reality vs. science fiction.
Most of the world isn't obsessing over or parsing every stray utterance the actors make, so I'm not sure this is actually an issue at this point.
Your "canary in a coal mine" analogy is interesting, although, again, there's sometimes a tendency for us hardcore fans to fret about things that don't really matter to the general audience. ("Canon violation!")
I'm sure that when the time comes to actually promote the movie (as opposed to six months in advance), the actors will all have their talking points down . . . .
But even the general public and mainstream media don't care that much about Science Fiction. The next Star Trek movie will be covered when it's time, and that will be that. The one thing the last movie did well was to break away from the stiff sci-fi mold that TOS kind of had.
Very true. And when, relatively speaking, "most of the world" is paying attention, hopefully the actors won't be making "stray utterances." And that's really what that was. I didn't read where he was prompted to mention Spock in that American Horror Story interview at all.
I'm hard-core about the last movie. What comes next will determine what I think, how I feel about it, and whether or not I move on.
Let's hope so. I don't think it's six months in advance because that's around when the film come out, right? They will probably be promoting it before then. Best of luck to them.
Not necessarily. Look at the top-grossing movies for the last few years. AVATAR, THE HUNGER GAMES, HARRY POTTER, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, the STAR WARS prequels, THE AVENGERS, IRON MAN, the last STAR TREK movie . . .
SF/Fantasy is practically mainstream now, especially when it comes to summer blockbusters. And look at all the mainstream media coverage the San Diego Comic-Con gets every year . . . .
HARRY POTTER - FANTASY (There's absolutely not science involved)
THE HUNGER GAMES - CREATIVE SPIN ON REALITY TV (No one considers this Science Fiction that I know of. I guess you could say that because they use technology to create/manipulate the "game" that this makes it Sci-Fi (which is setting a low threshold for what makes Sci-Fi), but I wouldn't call it Sciene Fiction, and I don't most people see it that way. And how they actually get technology to create an entire forest and alter it at will is not even attempted in terms of explanation/plausibility. We're just supposed to believe that "some time in the future" this can happen. That's more fantasy to me than anything.
PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN - FANTASY (Absolutely no science is involved.)
AVATAR - FANTASY/sci-fi (The upper/lower case is on purpose. The Na'vi are beautiful, fantastical, aliens in what seems like a magical world. The fantasy/love aspects of this story take over the science aspects overwhelmingly, and I'd suppose this is by design.)
STAR WARS - FANTASY/SAGA (There are tech things, like light sabers, that are used, but they may as well be powered and designed by magic for as much scientific explanation they get. And magic is used with "the force" and all that.)
THE AVENGERS/IRON MAN - SUPERHERO MOVIES (There are both some fantasy and sci-fi aspects to these films, but I'd say that the superhero film is a "type" of film, and these movies are more that than anything else.)
STAR TREK - SCIENCE FICTION/fantasy (The upper/lower case is on purpose. This is a science fiction movie, but there's no scientific basis for a couple of things, like Vulcan Mind-melds... That's more a fantasy element.)
I think the recurring theme here is FANTASY, not sci-fi. And no one ever said fantasy wasn't popular, at least not that I know of. It's very popular. Always has been.
all this talk about one of the characters dying is depressing and it doesn't make me too excited to watch the movie, tbh. (I too will watch it only after my friends reassure me that it isn't so bad, we share the same opinions so... ~what a coward~ )
I like the team too, I can admit that I wouldn't miss Chekov, Sulu or Scotty like I'd miss Spock, Kirk, Uhura and McCoy but even killing one of them would make me angry, tbh.
Part of me also hopes that the reboot can finally let the team truly shine.
Pine said that the movie isn't too dark but still... I can't imagine what could be bolder than blowing up vulcan. Unless, we are wrongly assuming that with "bolder" they mean something sad and tragic.
Let's not forget that the Spock and Uhura relationship in the first movie was a bold move and it was controversial too.
I didn't know it took bravery to watch a film, just interest. Interest is created by promotion, and yes, word-of-mouth.
I don't assume that "bigger" or "bolder" means anything. In many cases, it's the bad guy that dies in these films. He did in the last one.
I think I'm tired of this topic. Enjoy your weekend.
Keenser was in uniform in his last scene, IIRC. "Get down!"
In the earlier scenes, we aren't supposed to realise if Keenser is Starfleet. Or whether Keenser is male or female. Or whether in charge, or an underling, or even very sentient.
Hmmm, well ...
PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN and HARRY POTTER aren't Sci-fi in my book either. But except for THE AVENGERS, I would say the rest mostly are, even if some have a certain crossover appeal. By the way, there doesn't have to be an explanation in SF, particularly not sci-fi, that's more hard science fiction as I see it. The important thing is how the universe is presented generally. Unless of course someone makes a point of saying something is magical in an otherwise SF outing.
I don't know anything about THE HUNGER GAMES but if the world is being portrayed as being the result of technological manipulation, then its sci-fi. If they are casting spells, its fantasy.
AVATAR looked to be as much sci-fi as "Starship Troopers" etc. While some of the styling had a softer aspect (to make the natives more likeable no doubt) the only thing that looked fantasy-like were those floating hill things? I don't recall much about those. Still, it was overwhelmingly sci-fi. Magic was not explicitly use that I can remember. Strange you should think there is some conflict with having love in a SF story. Its not an either/or situation.
STAR WARS: Again, explanations aren't necessary. In the original movies I think the only questionable thing was the "Force" (which was later portrayed as SF), admittedly very important. By the way, you forgot "robots", "aliens" and "space ships", which are SF staples.
THE AVENGERS/IRON MAN: Both, particularly Iron Man, relied on scientific causes for the creation of the super hero(s) I believe. However I would say Iron Man is sci-fi (he is just a man apart from his suit), The Avengers, not so much.
STAR TREK: Mind-melds are "explained" by the fact that Vulcans are an alien race. Nowhere that I know of, is it suggested they are some sort of magic. Like if or not, and I personally don't (except in things like Star Wars), ESP etc is often invoked in SF. But its not usually explicity viewed as magic.
So overall, SF has become more mainstream. Certainly not as "despised" as it once was in the 50's and 60's for example.
Uhura didn't seem like that sort of girl. Classy euphemism though.
At no point do we get the impression he is superior to Scotty. Quite the opposite in fact, so I don't know who came up with that silly suggestion (obviously after the fact).
The way Scotty talks to him is the way you would talk to a badly behaved child or pet.
Yeah -- but most of the people seeing those movies just "see the movie". They don't follow it for months prior to the release. They also don't mark their clendars months or weeks in advance of a sci-fi or fantasy movie that they end up seeing.
I think a large portion of the people in those theaters watching those sci-fi/fantasy films are just people who said "lets go see a movie this weekend" without really planning which movie they were going to see until days or even hour before seeing it.
They end up in the sci-fi/fanatsy film NOT because they follow sci-fi and fantasy in general but rather because:
1. I was getting good buzz the week leading up to opening, and good word of mouth after opening.
2. The ads on TV made it look entertaining.
3. They probably found other sci-fi/fantasy/super-hero films to be entertaining in the past, and think this one might be fun also. HOWEVER, that doesn't necessairly make them "sci-fi/fantasy fans" in the tradtional sense.
I don't think so. Scotty and Keenser bicker, yeah, but more like old cops or something.
Separate names with a comma.