You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Amazing that the budget was $190M - with no A-list cast, no big sets to build, no international filming locations, nothing much practical, no epic army battles, no CG creatures, and only a 2-hour runtime. The VFX budget must have soaked up most of that.
To be honest, I can't say that it looked like a $190M picture. It looked more like half that.
Spoilers, obviously, but hilarious:
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness- … -508927844
Spoilers, obviously, but hilarious:
Yep, good one - that sums up most of the issues.
Also...
I know, it doesn't take much to rationalize any explanation for any plot-hole or inconsistency or inexplicable behaviour, but still.
Quick thoughts on Star Trek:
I'm no Trekkie - I literally know next to nothing about the franchise, characters etc. I saw the earlier Star Trek movie, but only once and I barely remember it.
I went to Star Trek Into Darkness with my mum, as an excursion (dinner and a movie) for Mother's Day. And considering she found Serenity to be "too violent", it's possible that part of my consciousness was wondering what she was thinking of it (she is a fan of the original show as a teenager) but loathes violence in general. She enjoyed it, I enjoyed it. Sure, there were massive plot holes and some scenes made me roll my eyes uncontrollably, but overall, I liked the message of the movie, that people in power have a responsibility to be careful and respectful of that power, and of other cultures. In direct contrast to how I felt leaving the cinema after Iron Man, which seemed to believe the exact opposite (certainly from a world-view perspective) and I walked out of Star Trek with a smile on my face. I didn't think too hard about it, but it didn't offend or annoy me on any serious level. Overall I give it a 3 / 5. I wouldn't pay to see it again, but I didn't feel like I'd wasted hours of my life.
+1
Holden wrote:Spoilers, obviously, but hilarious:
Yep, good one - that sums up most of the issues.
Eh, just reads very much like "Everything That's Wrong with X in 3 Minutes" to me. Many of the points aren't even actual complaints about the plot or structure -- it's mainly bitching for the sake of bitching as a means to be funny.
There certainly are enough legitimate criticisms about this movie to not waste time bickering about most of the stuff in that article. I get that it's supposed to be a joke article, but reading it, it seemed pretty quickly to me that it actually was just a joke of an article.
There certainly are enough legitimate criticisms about this movie to not waste time bickering about most of the stuff in that article. I get that it's supposed to be a joke article, but reading it, it seemed pretty quickly to me that it actually was just a joke of an article.
One thing it didn't cover,
I'm pretty sure he's just super-strong and that wasn't technically a hand-held weapon... even though he was handling it with his hands. But still, yeah. That happened.
One thing it didn't cover,
did Khan take out one or two Klingon Birds of Prey with a hand-held gun? Did I see correctly? Tell me that didn't happen.
I'm pretty sure he's just super-strong and that wasn't technically a hand-held weapon... even though he was handling it with his hands. But still, yeah. That happened.
Nope, that did not happen.
As for taking them out, clearly the bigger weapon he had was not a normal hand-held weapon. At the time I remember thinking that it was probably a smaller ship's phaser or something that he modified to use the way he did. Plus, they established how powerful it was, and it wasn't out of the realm of believably in the Trek universe. It fried a handful of people, and it tore a hole in a shuttle/patrol ship, causing it to go down (it didn't make the whole thing explode in mid air or anything).
If, in actual reality, you can down a helicopter or low-flying plane with an RPG (a hand-held weapon), then it's not the most ridiculous thing in the world to think that Kahn could down a shuttle/patrol ship with something he could carry.
Unless you're arguing that they ships "would/should" have had shields to defend against it, which is getting a little into the weeds of absurdity. But even then, there's no established moment where ships that small have shields anyways -- the shuttle in the beginning didn't have them (I think), the ship the Crew took to Kronos didn't have them, so again it's perfectly believable that the Klingon scouts didn't have them.
*shrug*
Again, there are enough legitimate criticisms to not waste time nitpicking things like this.
avatar wrote:One thing it didn't cover,
did Khan take out one or two Klingon Birds of Prey with a hand-held gun? Did I see correctly? Tell me that didn't happen.Luke Nieto wrote:I'm pretty sure he's just super-strong and that wasn't technically a hand-held weapon... even though he was handling it with his hands. But still, yeah. That happened.
Nope, that did not happen.
Those were pretty clearly not Birds of Prey, they were the equivalent of scout/patrol ships or shuttles. They bore a resemblance in their design, probably as both a nod to the fans but also because usually a race's smaller ships look like their larger ships. That isn't out of the ordinary in Trek.As for taking them out, clearly the bigger weapon he had was not a normal hand-held weapon. At the time I remember thinking that it was probably a smaller ship's phaser or something that he modified to use the way he did. Plus, they established how powerful it was, and it wasn't out of the realm of believably in the Trek universe. It fried a handful of people, and it tore a hole in a shuttle/patrol ship, causing it to go down (it didn't make the whole thing explode in mid air or anything).
If, in actual reality, you can down a helicopter or low-flying plane with an RPG (a hand-held weapon), then it's not the most ridiculous thing in the world to think that Kahn could down a shuttle/patrol ship with something he could carry.
Unless you're arguing that they ships "would/should" have had shields to defend against it, which is getting a little into the weeds of absurdity. But even then, there's no established moment where ships that small have shields anyways -- the shuttle in the beginning didn't have them (I think), the ship the Crew took to Kronos didn't have them, so again it's perfectly believable that the Klingon scouts didn't have them.
*shrug*
Again, there are enough legitimate criticisms to not waste time nitpicking things like this.
Well, that's a relief. I can sleep easier tonight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog … -jj-abrams
I enjoyed the hell out of this.
+2
Seriously, that gif should become an institution.
Anyway, coming to this one as a non-geek the film held together much more than Iron Man. I know they've flipped a lot of stuff on its head, but that doesn't bother me at all.
Also, I've no experience of the villain before seeing this picture.
You chaps can all sit around and collectively fellate Tony Stark's 3rd solo film, I'll be sitting I over here with a huge box of popcorn, watching new Start Trek, and grinning from ear to ear.
Last edited by Dave (2013-05-25 08:45:51)
+1
Seriously, that gif should become an institution.
Anyway, coming to this one as a non-geek the film held together much more than Iron Man. I know they've flipped a lot of stuff on its head, but that doesn't bother me at all.
Also, I've no experience of the villain before seeing this picture.
You chaps can all sit around and collectively fellate Tony Stark's 3rd solo film, I'll be sitting I over here with a huge box of popcorn, watching new Start Trek, and grinning from ear to ear.
The real villain is Damon Lindelof who repeatedly demonstrates he's completely scientifically illiterate, and is allergic to bringing in a science PhD as consultant, and therefore should be kept far away from the hard SF genre.
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-b … -darkness/
I tried to watch this, but then fell into a coma. A boredom coma. Of boredom.
I kind of disagree with most of what these three guys have issue with. The plot holds together, and I didn't really find myself thinking "wait, how did that happen?", although I don't know what a prime directive is, other than you can't divide it by anything other than itself, or one.
Would watch again.
Last edited by Dave (2013-05-25 12:01:12)
+1
You disappoint me Dave
Wow, you sound like many of my exes.
After bedroom time.
After seeing it in IMAX 3D on a rare 15/70mm print, I just rewatched the 3-minute Khan monologue in the cell that is the key to the entire plot and it makes no sense at all. Virtually every sentence Khan says in that monologue contradicts the previous one.
That's yet another result of the way the story is sorta based on the original series and sorta not.
In the original series...
It turns out that Khan and co. escaped Earth in a sleeper ship (because warp drive didn't exist yet) . Wherever they were trying to go, they didn't get there. So the Enterprise finds their ship adrift in deep space. They revive Khan and figure out too late who he and his people are. Hijinks ensue.
The movie apparently assumes we know that story already, but also doesn't stick to it. Hence, a mess.
This is all eerily reminscent of the prequels, what with their reliance on the audience's knowledge of later movies to fill in the drama of the story/scene, invariably done with a wink.
Which suddenly makes me very concerned for Star Wars Episode 7. Is Abrams capable of showing restraint and not filling that up with self-references? Are we going to see a one-armed wampa?
After seeing it in IMAX 3D on a rare 15/70mm print, I just rewatched the 3-minute Khan monologue in the cell that is the key to the entire plot and it makes no sense at all. Virtually every sentence Khan says in that monologue contradicts the previous one.
Why does Khan exist? To bring peace or wage war? How can 300 year olds be superior? Why did he freeze himself 300 years ago? Waiting for peace? But his job was to bring peace? Why was he alone awoken? Does he or does he not have access to his crew? If the admiral used the crew as leverage, how was Khan able to smuggle them into torpedoes? If Khan believed his crew dead, why did Khan transport to Kronos if that was the admiral's plan? Khan said his plan to smuggle his crew in the torpedoes was discovered, so does the admiral know the bodies are in there? How did Khan let himself be the Admiral's bitch, when he's so superior and easily able to take everyone else out? Whaaaat? And so on
This is the Iron Man 3 thread all over again. Nearly all of the "plot holes" being brought up here are answered in the movie.
This is the Iron Man 3 thread all over again. Nearly all of the "plot holes" being brought up here are answered in the movie.
Except in this thread, Doc Sub and I aren't at each other's throats.
Not being so invested in characters makes movies far more enjoyable.
The admiral knew that the bodies were in the torpedoes, so he was planning for Kirk to launch them all on Khan and wipe out the entire crew in one fell swoop.
C'mon - that makes no sense. If the admiral has the torpedoes and wants to kill the crew (because he doesn't want Khan to be reunited with the crew), why would he give the frozen crew to some upstart rogue captain and tell him to pursue the dangerous Khan? Why wouldn't he just deactivate the life support on all the torpedoes?
Are you and Dave the only people who have no problem with this? And the 1000 other critics who scratching their heads are just too thick to get it?
Before I even start thinking about that - I'm still trying to figure out how
Apparently those torpedoes have loads of empty space in them, in case you need to hide a person or your CD collection or whatnot.
I just didn't care, I was having fun.
+2
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
