RLM - Half in the Bag does STID [SPOILERS]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by MrPointy, May 25, 2013.

  1. Ryan8bit

    Ryan8bit Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    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.
     
  2. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    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.
     
  3. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    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)
     
  4. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    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.
     
  5. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    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.
     
  6. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    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.
     
  7. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    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?
     
  8. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    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.
     
  9. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
    Really? I went back and looked at the portion of the thread which preceded rafterman1701's post. There were posts (including mine) which expressed a preference for text over video for reviews, and posts which expressed criticism of RLM's past or current style (again, including mine). But "anger/hate"? In those 24 posts, I'm not seeing that.

    But, of course, that "Great point!" served mainly as a jumping-off place to your "See how I'm not really taking a swipe at other posters" swipe at the other posters in this thread. I've spoken to you before about that and, since this example is a more pointed and direct swipe, that it earns you a warning should come as no great surprise.

    Any and all comments concerning same should be made via PM.
     
  10. MrPointy

    MrPointy Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Location:
    Darwin, NT
  11. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Location:
    CommishSleer
    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.
     
  12. Kelthaz

    Kelthaz Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  13. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    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.
     
  14. OpenMaw

    OpenMaw Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Everett, Washington
    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.
     
  15. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    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.
     
  16. Alex1939

    Alex1939 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    :techman::techman: Big :techman:

    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.... :rofl:
     
  17. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
    Perhaps you missed the bit, a few posts up, about not taking swipes at other posters. No more, please.