Clearly not as someone thought of it and put it in the film (I'll spare you the prior series examples of the same thing
).
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Clearly not as someone thought of it and put it in the film (I'll spare you the prior series examples of the same thing
).The setup was so obvious, though, that it made the plot too predictable.
It seems to me that the use of the man to bomb the Archive was not actually useful. Khan could have just used some kind of craft to fly above and drop something on it. Why did he risk the man just refusing to do it or telling his superiors instead? Seems illogical to me.
Well, the point in the story is Kirk makes his sacrifice unaware of what we (the audience) suspect could happen. If Kirk had been aware there was a chance he'd survive his trip to the warp core, that would've truly spoiled the story.
I don't think the point was to create suspense over whether or not Kirk would live, either, so much as show what Kirk was willing to do to save his ship and crew. Again, within the story, he's giving his life for the rest of the crew. That, and he can be afraid. That's the growth of the character.
I've thought about this, too. As far as the father goes, as I stated above, he probably had to complete his end of the deal or Harrison would've killed his family.
Still, Harrison could've used a cyber attack, planted a time bomb, used a drone, or done any one of six or seven other things before needing a suicide bomber. Of course, the point of what he did within the story is that in the three or four minutes it takes the scene to play out, we learn just how cruel and manipulative Harrison is.
There's also the shock value of the bomb going off. That's probably the first time that happened in decades on Earth. Pure terror. Sloppy. If someone was willing to blow up what everyone thought was just a public archive, then what's next?
Well after Nero, Starfleet was prepared for an attack from foreign powers, a suicide bomber that admits to being manipulated represents an attack from within, which for the Federation on Earth I'm assuming, is borderline unheard of.
Seemed pretty deep under the city, so well protected from the outside.
^ yep, the Section 31 installation (Khan's true target) was deep underground. The memorial archive was built on top of it.
Yet, the explosion was powerful enough to tear through several levels of sub-levels, to breach street level, and be seen from the Royal Children's Hospital, a facility outside London.
After seeing "The Lone Ranger", I see a strength of Star Trek. The source material is far more adaptable and malleable than other products of 20th century media. (The biggest flaw of "The Lone Ranger" was its source material, which I think doesn't translate well into the 21st century.)
After seeing "The Lone Ranger", I see a strength of Star Trek. The source material is far more adaptable and malleable than other products of 20th century media. (The biggest flaw of "The Lone Ranger" was its source material, which I think doesn't translate well into the 21st century.)
It's easier when you're inside the facility.
Nope. Doesn't work that way, sorry.
You've proposed a recipe for getting slaughtered at the box office. Go big or go home.
Actually, the returns can be larger on a film made with a smaller budget.
What I see happening is that if a film has a larger budget, the harder the climb to profits. Some films can do this, like Man of Steel. Other films, like The Lone Ranger, can't do this, which can be calamitous for a studio. Walt Disney's stock has declined with the news that their latest film is a John Carter in the making.
For a film to succeed, it must be able to transcend cultural barriers, have good word of mouth, and have a hook to get people into the chairs.
What I see happening is that if a film has a larger budget, the harder the climb to profits. Some films can do this, like Man of Steel. Other films, like The Lone Ranger, can't do this, which can be calamitous for a studio. Walt Disney's stock has declined with the news that their latest film is a John Carter in the making.
For a film to succeed, it must be able to transcend cultural barriers, have good word of mouth, and have a hook to get people into the chairs.
I mean if you want to bomb a heavily-fortified location, bombing from the inside will be far more successful than from the outside. The death toll in the movie seems to be Section 31 people, moreso than anyone on the outside.
STID got something right at any rate, since about half of its total lifetime grosses are domestic and the other half foreign. And the movie's beaten its prodution budget in both foreign and domestic sales. (Box office mojo) I don't understand the cost structure of the distribution systems well enough to be able to judge when the movie makes a net profit, though.
Just finally fucking saw Into Darkness. Good fun- felt a bit like a "greatest hits" compilation of previous Trek movies, but was fun. Felt more like an action movie than a Trek movie - BC was great, totally stole the show....
Well, Wikipedia calls it a financial success, and seriously, there is no way something that's cost 190 million dollars and made about 440 made no net profit.
These aren't Man of Steel numbers, but this is the highest grossing ST film up until now, which is pretty damn great.
After seeing the film a second time this week, I caught two things (which has probably been brought out already):
- Chris Doohan was a transporter operator on the Enterprise....
- Kirk hit on Christine Chapel, which seems to be a reason she transferred off the Enterprise.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
