The Avengers the movie is The Ultimates, which was a cool modern redo on the Avengers, that cast Sam Jackson as Nick Fury 4 years before the Iron Man did.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
The Avengers the movie is The Ultimates, which was a cool modern redo on the Avengers, that cast Sam Jackson as Nick Fury 4 years before the Iron Man did.
I believe the UFP government is soft fascism. Fascism in a velvet glove. Note that the Federation Council is made of of unaccountable "appointees", not elected officials who can be thrown out of office. A seat on the Federation Council is a political reward for service to the state. ;. It is a legislative body. The nuclear war on Earth was initiated to create the "Great Reset" that could not be achieved any other way. Elites went into their bunkers, while the masses suffered. When it was over they handed them a bowl of rice and said "We will save you, cancel all your governments and rely only on us." Vulcan showed up and gave them the technology to really turn the crank on the people.
Everybody says the same things. Everybody agrees. There is harmony and an echo chamber everywhere. They keep being told they are in Utopia but private property (the basis of all human rights) is frowned on or not allowed. Picard is giving away his wine but the government "allows" him to use land they reclaimed from the nuclear war. They got control of all the land, transportation, communication, means of exchange (no money), and now they control space, travel in space and communication (only Federation Subspace relays which they monitor with AI computers).
The "constitution" of the Federation is pretty lame. Rights are "granted" by the government and thus can be taken away by the government. They are not inalienable. People say what they are supposed to say and do not dare act out or their social credits will be confiscated, cancelled. That's why they don't commit crimes. No one would dare in this soft Orwellian future.
Everybody says the same things. Everybody agrees. There is harmony and an echo chamber everywhere. They keep being told they are in Utopia but private property (the basis of all human rights) is frowned on or not allowed. Picard is giving away his wine but the government "allows" him to use land they reclaimed from the nuclear war. They got control of all the land, transportation, communication, means of exchange (no money), and now they control space, travel in space and communication (only Federation Subspace relays which they monitor with AI computers).
The "constitution" of the Federation is pretty lame. Rights are "granted" by the government and thus can be taken away by the government. They are not inalienable. People say what they are supposed to say and do not dare act out or their social credits will be confiscated, cancelled. That's why they don't commit crimes. No one would dare in this soft Orwellian future.
Not this again.
EDIT: To expand on this, there's no evidence for virtually any of this. You've made all this up and used it as "proof" that the Federation is fascist.
Last edited:
I never said they didn't make some changes when adapting the stories for screen. But they also didn't feel the need to fundamentally alter the characters or to write those origins out of existence entirely. They didn't do something like changing Captain America's origin from World War II to Vietnam or the Gulf War because they felt modern audiences needed to be able to identify and relate to him better, or that it would be more believable that the technology would happen closer to the present than in the 1940s.
All of the origins for those characters are pretty much what they were in the source material. And most importantly, they were not afraid to embrace the goofiness of the source material.
Those are brief easter eggs/references. Those aren't the costumes that they used for the entire film.
I can accept that the right to private property is perhaps a basic human right, not that it is the basis of all human rights. I'd call rights such as the right to life and self-determination more fundamental.
I never said they didn't make some changes when adapting the stories for screen. But they also didn't feel the need to fundamentally alter the characters or to write those origins out of existence entirely. They didn't do something like changing Captain America's origin from World War II to Vietnam or the Gulf War because they felt modern audiences needed to be able to identify and relate to him better, or that it would be more believable that the technology would happen closer to the present than in the 1940s.
All of the origins for those characters are pretty much what they were in the source material. And most importantly, they were not afraid to embrace the goofiness of the source material.
Neither of those pictures looks even close to how bad the original comics were and both were only brief jokes, not serious interpretations of the character.
Also, they did update Iron Man to the Afghanistan war for the benefit of modern audiences. And nothing about changing the blinking lights on the Enterprise has anything to do with fundamentally altering characters or origin stories.
I don't see how that's a "joke". Marvel is full of "blink and you'll miss them" nods to comics interpretations.
This was a serious part of the movie and the character. It was "Tony Stark made this in a cave!" And it matched with the comics as well as just about anything that had been seen. And part of the singular genius of Iron Man was that it managed to bridge the gap between the original Silver Age and the current comics.
Someone showing up in Ms Marvel with the "wrong" Captain Marvel costume (that matches the comics version)? That's a joke.
Anytime someone wants to say "Hey, there's no way this can be done, audiences will never accept it" i wonder why Star Wars has changed so little. And if you're going to argue budget then I suppose everything should at least still look like The Motion Picture. (Which is even NEWER than Star Wars!)
Because hardcore Star Wars nerds are the only people who complain more than hardcore Star Trek nerds.
Can you really not see any difference in the style of the Star Wars movies and the style of TOS/TMP? Really?
In general I think that there's two key factors why the Star Wars retained a much more consistent style, while Star Trek changed frequently:
1) Fictional World vs. "Real World" Future: The Setting of Star Wars is "long ago in a galaxy far away" so it's easier to accept a somewhat old-fashioned style if it's meant to be a mythical, fictional world. Star Trek has the problem that it pretends to be our future so it's difficult to have it look like the 1960s.
2) Timeless vs. "Of it's Time": While the original Star Wars movies are obviously from the 1970s/80s a lot of the design elements have a certain timelessness to them; clothing, machines, everything, and is inspired by many different sources. Princess Leia doesn't have Farrah Fawcett hair, she has a hairstyle inspired by Hopi Native Americans and wears a very archetypical, pure white princess dress, not a reflective disco suit. The machines have a "used future" look that makes them believable, while looking exotic enough. In TOS the women wear 1960s bouffants and 1960s mini-skirts and the technology is of the "blinky blinky lights" kind that was standard for space science fiction at the time. TMP is the same for the 1970s.
The Phantom Menace would like a word.
It's a huge change in story and art direction as well as fundamentally changed fan assumptions. It feels nothing like Star Wars.
Two, Star Wars is not connected to our humanity or our imagined future. It's allowed to stagnate.
There's a big difference between accepting something for a two hour movie every three years, or even two or three loosely related movies a year, and for 20+ episodes over 6 months every year for multiple years.
Well presumably a lot of the laws and governance is still by individual planets, the Federation in addition to being formed/continued by their representatives just has some minimal floors and guarantees.
The Cap scene was a literal joke. The Iron Man sequence was a first iteration, not ever intended as how Iron Man actually looks for the audience. It's supposed to be a clear beta test that no one is expected to take seriously as the real version of the title character.
And when I said the MCU didn't use the silver age tin can version of IM, I wasn't talking about the original comics version of the beta test suit, I was talking about the fact that the mainline IM suit from the comics back then looked more like a big armored tube with arms, legs and eye holes than the cool, sleek Iron Man of the movies.
That is pretty much their purpose, yes, especially the first two. Hardly a controversial opinion. That isn't to say that I don't like them. I do. But they were created specifically to draw in non-Trekkies.
Damn. I must be a split personality and one personality doesn't like Star Trek and other one does.
How dare I like 2009 Star Trek!
Well, he is supposed to be different. He doubles down on the rebelliousness that might have always been there, but Prime Kirk knew how to play by the rules. The lack of his father's influence let that trait potentially go unchecked.
It was freaking well done.
Idk if I'd say well done. I mean, going from cadet to captain that fast? Making him break all the rules and be promoted anyways seemed unnecessary.
I can't be sure Abrams had all this in mind instead of just following the pop culture depiction of Kirk. Like, I get they want him to be different than mainline Kirk but having his dad get killed by the main villain? Seems a bit fairy tale like. I wanted to see the Kirk who earned his way to the top
Similar threads
- Locked
