Rogue Reviews thread [Read-only] [SPOILERS, no doubt]

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Where's the equality?

Why where the space suits in Prometheus tighter for the females and looser for the males, with different chest armor for the females (covering less) and males (covering more)?

Given the cleavage-focused closeup on Charlize Theron in a wet bandage bikini (an odd recurring future fashion trend) doing push-ups, I'm sure it was a matter of providing eye candy for the most part, but in regards to different body armor or chest plate designs, that's something law enforcement and the military have been making adjustments to in real life with the ever increasing numbers of female soldiers and police. Women have until recently usually been stuck with body armor designed primarily for men that fits them uncomfortably and can reduce performance or even cause safety issues in the field.

http://femalebodyarmor.blogspot.com/2011/12/difference-between-male-and-female-body.html

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/25/army-designs-body-armor-for-women-and-batteries.html

 

[Phily B]

Re: Nibiru

I hated how in TNG they'd let a civilization die out even if the Enterprise could save them without them ever knowing about Enterprise. Even so, is it really terrible for a civilization or small part of it to worship the Enterprise like a God if they can save them from total annihilation? Eventually it'll just be a myth, think of how many religions and Gods have died out in our history.

In TNG: Pen Pals, they eventually did save them. And in the other episode, we see what happens to the culture when they witness "divine intervention". So I think TNG was pretty balanced and coherent on that issue.

A carpenter with 30 followers somehow made it into the main religion for our planet.

ANY visible intervention is bad intervention. You cannot foresee the consequences.

We didn't see what happens to the culture though, it was prevented. But regardless, that was a slightly different situation considering they were not on the verge of an extinction event. Not to mention it was all hypothetical and the Mintakans were fairly advanced.

Is it really worth killing an entire species and civilization to uphold the PD? No, especially if you can interfere without being spotted.

 

[ConRefit79]

Re: Nibiru

Is it really worth killing an entire species and civilization to uphold the PD? No, especially if you can interfere without being spotted.

What if the species later goes on to do evil like Borg or the Vadwar. You never know how they will develop. That's why they try not to interfere. That's why I think they never really violated the PD in TOS. They always tried to correct previous contamination. Kind of like Quantum Leap. "Striving to put right what once went wrong...."

 

[AntonyF]

Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

I posted something similar in the big spoiler thread. I guess the lack of any the stuff you've quoted above is what's making me feel so disappointed. Pretty much everything we had been promised didn't happen. Where was the Darkness in this movie? I had really hoped for some dramatic things to happen, like one of the crew turning bad or something. But I guess they just don't have the balls to do something like that.

The whole father killing people for his child thing I thought was an excellent start... that moral dilemma, bad people do bad things for good reasons etc... I was expecting more of that. Instead you just get a sociopath Khan, and even Admiral Robocop was in no way sympathetic. In the end the father went into darkness, yet I can't think of many examples beyond that.

42. I was disappointed it wasn't 47.

I know! Such a missed trick.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Nibiru

What if the species later goes on to do evil like Borg or the Vadwar. You never know how they will develop. That's why they try not to interfere. That's why I think they never really violated the PD in TOS. They always tried to correct previous contamination. Kind of like Quantum Leap. "Striving to put right what once went wrong...."

We should just look to places like Africa and see what all our colonization and evangelization efforts resulted in. And we still interfere everywhere because we haven't learned one bit.

 

[Mal]

Re: Feeling dejected *spoilers*

I thought the film was *perfect* until they redid Wrath of Khan (an old guy got up and walked out!) and then the "KHAAAAAN!" killed it for me with it's awfulness. It was unintentional parody I got my face out of my palm in time to enjoy the final fight, but the film's momentum took a HUGE hit.

Overall I still liked it a lot.

I hadn't read any spoilers, so I literally laughed out loud when Spock did the Khaaaan Sadly, I don't think anyone else in the (mostly empty) theater was a fan, cause no one else seemed the least bit bothered.

I wonder which will suffer greater infamy in the long run: Darth Vader's Noooooooooo! or Quinto's Khaaaaaaan!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Nibiru

If you save a culture from a volcano by coming down in a big space ship, you don't really save it. It dies that day, because that event will spark a religion, and we all know how much that transforms a culture.

This assumes that "culture" is some rigidly defined, inflexible thing that is not constantly adapting to changes in the surrounding environment or massive sociological events.

According to the ST:ID, this is the first 5 year mission ever. Which kind of makes me think that either ENT never happened (happy days!)

Except for all the references to Enterprise in this film and the previous one ("Admiral Archer's prized beagle"). So, no.

 

[Phily B]

Re: Nibiru

We didn't see what happens to the culture though, it was prevented. But regardless, that was a slightly different situation considering they were not on the verge of an extinction event. Not to mention it was all hypothetical and the Mintakans were fairly advanced.

Is it really worth killing an entire species and civilization to uphold the PD? No, especially if you can interfere without being spotted.

What if the species later goes on to do evil like Borg or the Vadwar. You never know how they will develop. That's why they try not to interfere. That's why I think they never really violated the PD in TOS. They always tried to correct previous contamination. Kind of like Quantum Leap. "Striving to put right what once went wrong...."

This is just Hitler's murder paradox, I've never bought it. You wouldn't let a baby die because they might become another Hitler would you?

What if the species later goes on to do evil like Borg or the Vadwar. You never know how they will develop. That's why they try not to interfere. That's why I think they never really violated the PD in TOS. They always tried to correct previous contamination. Kind of like Quantum Leap. "Striving to put right what once went wrong...."

We should just look to places like Africa and see what all our colonization and evangelization efforts resulted in. And we still interfere everywhere because we haven't learned one bit.

That's a fine part of the prime directive, I agree with some parts of it but using it as an almost religious doctrine of the Federation? No. Just because we refuse to interfere in a civil war, famine etc doesn't mean that a Starfleet vessel shouldn't be able to blow apart an asteroid on a collision course with an M-Class planet.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Re: Where's the equality?

The Carol almost naked scene was probably just tributing Classic Trek where every episode had scantly clad women.

Probably the one thing in STID they did right.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Nibiru

Secondly, the crews actions on the planet (stopping the volcano) is in itself a violation of the Prime Directive, as they are interfering with the natural development of that species. As unpleasant as it may be to allow a race to die, had the Enterprise not been there the volcano would have erupted and that would be the end of them, by stopping the volcano they interruped the natural development of the native species.

The more they avoid the immoral and abominable TNG interpretation of the Prime Directive that it's better to let a species die than to interfere in their development by saving them the better. What possible difference does interfering make if the species won't have any further development thanks to being extinct?

They think they're avoiding playing God in TNG by letting nature take its course, but who's to say having other more technologically advanced cultures --preferably secretly-- protecting species from destruction isn't part of the "natural order" (whatever that means) itself? They evolved naturally to that state, and they have already made countless changes and interfered with the course of development of the universe simply by existing. That's the way things have been happening for billions of years. Earth (and other Federation worlds) was certainly no stranger to having overseers and protectors from future/more technologically advanced cultures looking out for preserving species or the planet itself, so it's amazingly hypocritical to deny that service to other species when Humans and the Federation are put in the same position.

It also makes the arrogant assumption that species are too primitive or irrational or stupid to handle to truth if it's explained to them, in the cases where you have no choice but to reveal yourselves to save them. While that might be true sometimes, the PD's blanket zero tolerance policy is irrational and stupid itself. We get a glimpse of that attitude in the TNG episode where the villager kills himself upon exposure to the truth after Worf's brother saved him, and people act as if Nikolai was some kind of monster as a result, when if the Enterprise crew were left to their devices the villager and all of his people would be dead anyway.

The parts of the Prime Directive that say you shouldn't needlessly expose a culture to future technological advancements that can be abused or to social customs that can alter their own, and that you shouldn't interfere in internal disputes (so long as they don't threaten the entire species) are conscientious and reasonable. But when it's used as an excuse to sit back and do nothing as a species is wiped out by a natural or technological disaster or war it's disgusting and arrogant and playing God every bit as much as if you were to interfere directly. Good riddance to it.

Testify, dude!

If you save a culture from a volcano by coming down in a big space ship, you don't really save it. It dies that day, because that event will spark a religion, and we all know how much that transforms a culture.

Imagine a close relative is dying, and you could only save him by wiping his entire memory and personality in the process. He/She would be alive, but at the same time completely gone.



So yes, the proper choice would have been to let nuSpock die there and keep the Abramsprise under water, because that way the culture would have been saved without a GOD coming down to them saving them.

Meh. All UFOs become gods to ancient peoples? What if Nibiru was like late 20th century Earth? In "Tomorrow is Yesterday", the Enterprise became just another brief unexplained UFO report in the Air Force files.

I hated how in TNG they'd let a civilization die out even if the Enterprise could save them without them ever knowing about Enterprise. Even so, is it really terrible for a civilization or small part of it to worship the Enterprise like a God if they can save them from total annihilation? Eventually it'll just be a myth, think of how many religions and Gods have died out in our history.

The problem is you have no idea what effect saving said culture will have. Lots of seemingly feel good ideas often have unintended consequences.

You can't go around doing things worried about unintended or unpredictable consequences. You'd go crazy and soon find yourself incapable of doing anything for fear of the unknown. An overly broad policy of not acting because you can't be sure of the effect of saving the culture isn't logical, either. It's arrogance.

 

[ConRefit79]

Re: Nibiru

We should just look to places like Africa and see what all our colonization and evangelization efforts resulted in. And we still interfere everywhere because we haven't learned one bit.

No, we never seem to learn. Even within our own countries, people try to interfere in other peoples lives because they think they know best.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Re: Nibiru

Firstly, why is the Enterprise underwater?

Because they needed another cool shot for the trailers.

They like doing a lot of things that "look cool," but really make no practical sense.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played? [SPOILERS]

I'm definitely in agreement that Cumberbatch was miscast as Khan. His portrayal wasn't even reminiscent of Khan in the slightest.

Who should he have played instead?

Who should have been the villain of STiD?



Personally, I like the fact that Cumberbatch can play a calm, logical and intimidating villain. It doesn't suit the over-the-top and flamboyant nature of Khan, but it suits other potential villains.


I would have liked Cumberbatch as the physical android form of M5 from "The Ultimate Computer." I enjoyed how the M5 had that creepy HAL quality to it, and the great man versus machine questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPMsyULnsM4

He could have been like Superman's BRAINIAC character, and Kirk trying to outsmart a supercomputer that controls his ship.

 

[Kruezerman]

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

Me.

Or an evil Santa Claus. Great Christmas blockbuster!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

No.

He should have played exactly who he played.

BTW, you need a SPOILER warning in your topic title.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Nibiru

We should just look to places like Africa and see what all our colonization and evangelization efforts resulted in. And we still interfere everywhere because we haven't learned one bit.

No, we never seem to learn. Even within our own countries, people try to interfere in other peoples lives because they think they know best.

But there is a definite difference between going into a country and forcing your religion on them or exploiting them for your gain and delivering truly humanitarian aid with no strings attached. The PD doesn't seem to recognize those nuances.
On Earth, if people in a certain area of the world are starving, or suffer from annual floods they can't control, is it interference with the natural development of their culture to send them food, or to have international engineers come in to build a dam to stem the floods? And in doing so, is it interference if the natives see great pieces of mechanical equipment doing things that they never could've imagined, before? What if they hear Kerry Underwood music coming from an engineer's iPhone? What if the natives start wanting iPhones of their own? What if they become adicted to Angry Birds? What unintended effects will all this have on their culture? Better to let them starve or drown?

 

[Kane_Steel]

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

No.

He should have played exactly who he played.

Why?

There seems to be a lot of mixed reactions about his suitability for Khan, and rehashing TWOK elements in an inferior manner.

 

[Borgminister]

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

Mudd.

 

[trekkiebaggio]

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

Borg King Khan

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Re: Who SHOULD Cumberbatch have played?

The title itself is almost a spoiler.
This board really is a minefield at the moment.