Author |
Message |
Darth Indiana Bond
007
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:43 pm Posts: 11620 Location: Wouldn't you like to know
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Dr. Lecter wrote: Bradley Witherberry wrote: David wrote: No one can ever die in this timeline again. Bones has synthesized a virtual fountain of youth. While we're at it... how did Khan Noonien Singh turn into a white guy?  Why does his ethnicity matter? The "original" Khan was a Mexican playing an Indian... Wait, aren't both people white? Or does White only include Anglo-Saxons and Teutons once more?
_________________
|
Sun May 19, 2013 2:48 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68372
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Mexicans generally aren't considered caucasian. But this whole Khan has changed ethnicity thing is a load of bullshit since new fans might have never watched Wrath of Khan or the TV series, and even if they have done, it's still a load of bullshit because actors change all the time and it's just not an issue, especially for such a small villain in the grand scheme of villainy.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sun May 19, 2013 5:34 am |
|
 |
David
Pure Phase
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am Posts: 34865 Location: Maryland
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
The only problem with Khan in this movie is he sets up the moment where Zachary Quinto "pays homage" to Shatner's dramatic delivery of "KHAN!"
A douche chill shoots down the collective spine of the audience.
_________________   1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game
|
Sun May 19, 2013 5:41 am |
|
 |
Viper Rodgers
Leader of the Pack
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:35 am Posts: 1526 Location: A better place
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Bradley Witherberry wrote: Here is the review of STiD from Nordling over at Ain't It Cool News - - accurate and insightful! Quote: SPOILER ALERT: I’m frankly not interested in discussing STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS in vague terms. If I have to get to the meat and marrow of the movie, I have to spoil, and spoil extensively. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, and wish to remain spoiler free, keep on trekkin’.
Nordling here.
Be careful what you wish for.
STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN is the greatest movie in the TREK franchise. It’s not even in dispute, really – for longtime fans, it’s the movie that squarely places these characters in our hearts in ways that even the television show couldn’t. It deals with weighty themes and emotions, and it’s one of my Top 10 favorite movies of all time. (I wrote about KHAN last year, so go back and read it, if you’re so inclined.)
THE WRATH OF KHAN is the best thing to happen to STAR TREK, and the worst thing to happen to STAR TREK. Because of its critical success and its success with the fans, WRATH OF KHAN has become the expectation; instead of trying new ideas and themes, the franchise has tried to return to that well, to try to duplicate what was created in the lab, in the hopes that they can achieve that same success. And something essential to TREK, in my opinion, has been lost. Instead of a problem for the Enterprise crew to solve, the films have given us one Big Bad after another, all inspired (if not directly ripping off) by Khan.
I’m fully aware of the difference of the mediums – television, even back in the 1960s, has the luxury of exploring ideas a bit more than a major summer blockbuster, trying to recover millions of dollars, can do. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a hugely budgeted movie, with lavish special effects, set pieces, and scale. It’s a massive investment. So the tried and true, the reticence to take risks with story, is understandable. What I cannot forgive is the cynical nature of freely stealing scenes without any tact or subtext, in the hopes of striking the same kind of resonance, thinking that all fans want is to see THE WRATH OF KHAN over and over. It’s insulting and enraging that JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, and Roberto Orci think so little of the old fans (and the new ones, to be honest) that they think fans won’t recognize when they’re being pandered to.
I certainly don’t have it in for JJ Abrams’ iteration of this franchise, either. I loved 2009’s STAR TREK – although there are plot holes galore in the movie, it wins you over with charm, humor, and most important of all, it gets the characters essentially right. Yes, James Kirk is a bit of an egotistical asshole. But this is a Kirk that has not been tempered with loss, has not come to the maturity that Shatner’s Kirk has, and this Kirk has experienced different things than Original Timeline Kirk. If you squint hard enough, though, you can see the more measured, older man inside. Chris Pine does well with the role he’s been given. So does Zachary Quinto as Spock, Karl Urban as McCoy, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, and Anton Yelchin as Chekov.
In STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, these Starfleet officers haven’t really seen much of the galaxy yet – the five-year mission we all know and love is about to happen, and Kirk expects to be given that mission by Starfleet. But an incident where Kirk breaks the Prime Directive to rescue Spock from an active volcano gets Kirk demoted back to Christopher Pike’s (Bruce Greenwood) First Officer on the Enterprise. Pike feels Kirk isn’t ready for command, but he still sees something in Kirk, and he’s willing to help him through his Starfleet growing pains.
Enter John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a mysterious terrorist and turncoat agent who Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) believes has betrayed the Federation to serve the Klingon Empire. Harrison brutally attacks a Starfleet meeting, killing Pike and sending Kirk into a vengeful rage. Although Spock, Scotty, and the rest of the crew believe Kirk is blinded by emotion, Marcus decides to grant Kirk’s request to pursue Harrison into the Klingon Empire, and to carpet bomb his location with 72 photon torpedoes to make sure the bastard’s dead.
When Harrison reveals himself to Kirk as Khan Noonien Singh, he might as well have said “My name is Anakin Skywalker” for all the meaning it has for Kirk. It means a lot to the audience, though – the re-introduction of one of STAR TREK’s most well-known villains. But there’s no weight, no resonance to the reveal, because there’s no history between them – yet. Khan wants Kirk to know the truth – that he’s simply a pawn in Marcus’ machinations to start a war with the Klingon Empire.
I actually thought this was a fascinating use of the character – this isn’t the Khan of “Space Seed” or WRATH OF KHAN, and he even has a sense of nobility about him as he and Kirk form an uneasy alliance to stop Marcus. I also liked how in this reality, the Federation was quickly becoming more militarized since Vulcan’s destruction, and since TREK has always been somewhat topical, those themes felt especially relevant. I loved Scotty’s plea to Kirk to not undertake the mission – “We’re supposed to be explorers!” – and I think Gene Roddenberry would have approved the symbolic way that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS addresses the War on Terror.
There are quite a few plot holes racking up at this point, however. Apparently transwarp technology can transport someone from Earth all the way to Q’onos, but the Enterprise can’t even beam Spock up from a volcano that’s less than a mile away. If transporting tech is so advanced, why are there even starships at all? The plots of both Khan and Marcus seem fairly ridiculous once they are closely examined. Even the way Kirk coolly dismisses his breaking of the Prime Directive feels tonally wrong. Yes, Original Series Kirk broke the Prime Directive all the time. But he had the good sense to at least feel bad about it, or look for every possible alternative. But JJ Abrams, like in 2009’s STAR TREK, manages to charm his way through these plot issues, and his action set pieces are riveting and intense. It’s directed just as confidently as the last one. The plot holes are irritating, but they aren’t detracting from the movie. Not yet.
Then Old Spock shows up, and the movie promptly shits the bed. It’s rare when one scene totally derails a movie into ineptitude, but this scene does it. It’s, of course, always welcome to see Leonard Nimoy again, but this scene gives us such unnecessary exposition and takes the audience completely out of the movie that it doesn’t recover.
That’s when the movie became THE WRATH OF RET-KHAN, and lost me completely.
See that picture above? That’s the most iconic, resonant, emotional scene in all of STAR TREK. It’s one friend saying goodbye to another, after years of companionship and camaraderie. Those two men know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. They’ve seen each other at their best and their worst. The scene relies on context and history, but it’s no less effective to newcomers who see it. We have Spock, who dies in the bravest way possible, saving Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise. It is a good death. And in that death, he teaches his old friend Kirk an invaluable lesson – he faces death, finally, after dodging and cheating it for so many years. Kirk, at last, knows what sacrifice really means, and he becomes a better man for it. In 1982, when a character like Spock died, it meant something. Sure, he came back in the next movie, but at the time, audiences had no idea he would return. It felt final, and triumphant. It’s one of my favorite scenes in movie history. So yeah, I’m a little precious about it.
You don’t get to remake That Scene. You can’t, because what that scene means has been set up by years of episodes and a movie, and it has special significance. The fact that it’s now Kirk in the chamber and not Spock doesn’t change anything, and when Kirk dies we already know that it’s not permanent. It’s just an opportunity for Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci to shove fan service down the audience’s throat. There’s no special meaning or weight to it, and when Spock screams “KHAN!” at the top of his lungs, it feels like an insult. It feels like the filmmakers think so little of STAR TREK and the fans; that all we want to see are the same stories over and over.
I don’t blame the cast, who do the best they can with the material – Quinto pretty much embodies Spock at this point, much like Nimoy did, and Pine’s arc in the movie into a more mature captain almost works if not for the script. Every character gets a moment or two to shine. It’s somewhat the fault of JJ Abrams – the action sequences are enjoyable and exciting, but he also has no issue killing a lot of sacred cows. But the screenwriters are the ones who truly earn my anger. The script is truly horrid – full of astounding plot holes (seriously, why all the stressing over Khan’s blood to save Kirk when they have 72 of his superhuman crew with similar healing abilities RIGHT FUCKING THERE), a lack of understanding about the essentials of STAR TREK, and worst of all, a contempt for the audience. And I haven’t even talked about the inert character of Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), who has nothing to do except take off her clothes for Kirk to ogle. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS boldly goes where so many bad TREK movies have gone before.
This new reality of STAR TREK had such possibilities, as Spock would say. So many stories, told from different perspectives and ideas. It was a license to play in a vast universe, the best sandbox ever. Whether STAR TREK can be salvaged from this remains to be seen; it’s highly likely we’ll see more of these movies. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS ends where the series begins, but I can’t help thinking that there’s yet more wheel-spinning to come. I’m sure there are audiences out there who have no idea what I’m talking about, and will consider my ranting that of a scorned old school fan. Gene Roddenberry once pitched STAR TREK as “WAGON TRAIN to the stars.” I remember in STAND BY ME, Gordie says, “WAGON TRAIN's a really cool show, but did you notice they never get anywhere? They just keep wagon training.” If the directing and the lousy writing of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS are any indication, we won’t be going anywhere new for a long time. Seeking out new life, indeed.
Nordling, out. While I usually despise this site and its way of approaching reviews, I cannot agree more with this write up. As a huge fan of "Wrath of Khan," this movie, while superbly made and definitely entertaining, felt like a mockery to me. Out of all the possible ways they could take this franchise into new, original territory, they recreated the past. I know its this damn alternate universe stuff, but give me a break. This was just lazy screenwriting and I found it pretty pathetic If I had not seen "Wrath of Khan" or was not such a fan of it though, I probably would really be loving this movie, because it is great entertainment. So I am extremely conflicted about this whole thing!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 7:40 am |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Dr. Lecter wrote: Why does his ethnicity matter? The "original" Khan was a Mexican playing an Indian... I generally have no issue with an actor portraying a character of a different race (e.g.: Ben Kingsley as Gandhi)...  The character of Khan Noonien Singh is an Indian from India and Ricardo Montalban played the ethnicity of the role with subtle aplomb. Benedict Cumberbatch on the other hand, didn't even try to address his character's Indian heritage. Benicio Del Toro was originally heralded for the role, and would have been the natural choice if Abrams hadn't caught Nolanitis when (ironically), he delved into the whole "darkness" theme. Algren wrote: it's still a load of bullshit because actors change all the time and it's just not an issue, especially for such a small villain in the grand scheme of villainy. Khan is considered one of the greatest film villains of all time in numerous polls and articles (such as this one or this one). Interestingly, from a broader perspective, there is a case to be made that Khan isn't a villain at all... Quote: Just finished re-watching Space Seed after seeing Into Darkness, and I'm struck by how **NOT** evil Khan is. Khan wasn't evil, he was ambitious and ego-maniacal, it's stated that he ruled without massacres and internal war. He and his followers even opted to leave Earth rather than continue to fight against those that attacked HIM. Kirk, McCoy, and Scotty all remark how they actually admire him in many respects. Once awoken on the Enterprise, it's not until the crew discovers who he is and begins to judge him by his reputation that he becomes defensive and attempts to free his people, and doing so without killing anyone. It's his non-lethal attempt to take the ship and secure a future for his followers that persuades Kirk to absolve him of his crimes and leave him on Ceti Alpha V. Khan doesn't become a "villain" in Star Trek until he's forced into 15 years of torturous exile by Kirk's failure to keep his promise to him and check in on them. For the first two acts of Into Darkness, I was impressed with the noble nature they were showing him and the resistance to paint him as the character 15-years of exile made him, further acknowledgement that it was indeed Kirk that inadvertently made him the villain originally, but then Spock used "phone-a-friend" and Khan was instantly a bad guy for the rest of the film. -via AICN comments section of Nordling review
|
Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Bradley Witherberry wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Why does his ethnicity matter? The "original" Khan was a Mexican playing an Indian... I generally have no issue with an actor portraying a character of a different race (e.g.: Ben Kingsley as Gandhi)...  The character of Khan Noonien Singh is an Indian from India and Ricardo Montalban played the ethnicity of the role with subtle aplomb. Benedict Cumberbatch on the other hand, didn't even try to address his character's Indian heritage. Benicio Del Toro was originally heralded for the role, and would have been the natural choice if Abrams hadn't caught Nolanitis when (ironically), he delved into the whole "darkness" theme. Ben Kingsley's father was part Indian and Ben Kingsley's real name is Krishna Pandit Bhanji. He is way more Indian than Montalban (who is as Indian as pico de gallo). Montalban played the part with a Mexican accent too. So why is that not racist (or casting Benicio del Toro), but Cumberbatch is racist?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 9:59 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Algren wrote: It seems like everyone is enjoying this. I'm glad.
I will see this when it arrives here on May 28, but I won't have watched the first. I recommend you to do so.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:00 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Jmart wrote: It's a convenient way to keep Khan alive so he can be in another sequel.
It's this.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:01 am |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Dr. Lecter wrote: So why is that not racist (or casting Benicio del Toro), but Cumberbatch is racist? Please take a moment to quote me where I said it was "racist". Thank-you in advance.
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:11 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Bradley Witherberry wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: So why is that not racist (or casting Benicio del Toro), but Cumberbatch is racist? Please take a moment to quote me where I said it was "racist". Thank-you in advance. It always goes back to that when discussing the ethnicity. Why does the ethnicity matter?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:16 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68372
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Indians make for shit villains. The whole world knows that if you want a proper villain, employ a Brit. 
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:25 am |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Dr. Lecter wrote: It always goes back to that when discussing the ethnicity. Why does the ethnicity matter? Is that some sort of German version of the old adage... "to the man who only has a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"?
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:39 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Bradley Witherberry wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: It always goes back to that when discussing the ethnicity. Why does the ethnicity matter? Is that some sort of German version of the old adage... "to the man who only has a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"? You are avoiding my question. How is being Indian (or Mexican or any other ethnicity) essential to the character of Khan? What does it mean for the character?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:43 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68372
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Dr. Lecter wrote: Bradley Witherberry wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: It always goes back to that when discussing the ethnicity. Why does the ethnicity matter? Is that some sort of German version of the old adage... "to the man who only has a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"? You are avoiding my question. How is being Indian (or Mexican or any other ethnicity) essential to the character of Khan? What does it mean for the character? It means nothing apart from fanbase familiarity.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sun May 19, 2013 10:55 am |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Star Trek: Into WhitenessQuote: The idea of a future where even South and East Asian men get to pilot a starship and love swashbuckling, where Black women make Lieutenant on the Enterprise and actually get the boy, will be trivialized and eroded and whitewashed when the most formidable and complex Star Trek baddie becomes a white man named Khan.  TOS Khan looking at a watercolor of himself. Yes, he’s wearing a dastar (Sikh turban) It wasn’t perfect in the 60s when Ricardo Montalbán was cast to play Khan (a character explicitly described in the episode script of Space Seed as being Sikh, from the Northern regions of India). But considering all of the barriers to representation that Roddenberry faced from the television networks, having a brown-skinned man play a brown character was a hard-won victory. It’s disappointing and demoralizing that with the commercial power of Star Trek in his hands, JJ Abrams chose not to honour the original spirit of the show, or the symbolic heft of the Khan character, but to wield the whitewash brush... I’m happy that actors I enjoy like Zoë Saldaña and John Cho are playing characters who mean so much to me, and that they, in respect for the groundbreaking contributions by Nichelle Nichols and George Takei in these roles, have paid homage to that past. But all of that will be marred by having my own skin edited out, rendered worthless and silent and invisible when a South Asian man is portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch up on that screen. In the original Trek, Khan, with his brown skin, was an Übermensch, intellectually and physically perfect, possessed of such charisma and drive that despite his efforts to gain control of the Enterprise, Captain Kirk (and many of the other officers) felt admiration for him. And that’s why the role has been taken away from actors of colour and given to a white man. Racebending.com has always pointed out that villains are generally played by people with darker skin, and that’s true … unless the villain is one with intelligence, depth, complexity. One who garners sympathy from the audience, or if not sympathy, then — as from Kirk — grudging admiration. What this new Trek movie tells us, what JJ Abrams is telling us, is that no brown-skinned man can accomplish all that. That only by having Khan played by a white actor can the audience engage with and feel for him, believe that he’s smart and capable and a match for our Enterprise crew. What an enormous and horribly ironic step backwards. For Star Trek, for media representation, and for the vision of a future where we have transcended systemic, racist erasure.
|
Sun May 19, 2013 12:36 pm |
|
 |
Flava'd vs The World
The Kramer
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:36 am Posts: 25427 Location: Classified
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
So he should have cast an ethnic actor even though they weren't the best man for the part? Now to me, that is far more racist than just getting the best guy for the part. So maybe your own prejudices against white people are what's causing you to be unable to enjoy such an awesome movie?
|
Sun May 19, 2013 12:55 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Funnily enough the article itself notes that Montalban wasn't ideal, but given the times it was still a small victory. However, now, decades later, Bradley still would have been very happy with Benicio del Toro, yet another Mexican, portraying an Indian. As long as the character is BROWN, Bradley's happy. This is basically what it seems to be about here.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 1:12 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Flava'd vs The World wrote: So he should have cast an ethnic actor even though they weren't the best man for the part? Now to me, that is far more racist than just getting the best guy for the part. So maybe your own prejudices against white people are what's causing you to be unable to enjoy such an awesome movie? Really? Really?!?!? You might make that argument in regards to some other franchise, but Star Trek has always been a well known pioneer in the use of actors from various ethnic backgrounds to portray a future free of racism where all people work together as equals. Mae Jemison, the first black woman in space has made no secret of the fact that "one of her role models growing up was Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt. Uhura on 'Star Trek.'"And of course, Nichelle Nichols herself was implored by Dr. Martin Luther King to remain on the series as a role model. When she mentioned to Dr. King that she was planning to leave the show, he famously responded: Quote: “What are you talking about?!” and so I told him I would be leaving the show, because; and that was as far as he let me go, and he said, “STOP! You cannot! You cannot leave this show! Do you not understand what you are doing?! You are the first non-stereotypical role in television! Of intelligence, and of a woman and a woman of color?! That you are playing a role that is not about your color! That this role could be played by anyone? This is not a black role. This is not a female role! A blue eyed blond or a pointed ear green person could take this role!” And I am looking at him and looking at him and buzzing, and he said, “Nichelle, for the first time, not only our little children and people can look on and see themselves, but people who don’t look like us, people who don’t look like us, from all over the world, for the first time, the first time on television, they can see us, as we should be!
As intelligent, brilliant, people! People in roles other than slick tap dancers, and maids, which are all wonderful in their own ways, but for the first time we have a woman, a WOMAN, who represents us and not in menial jobs, and you PROVE it, this man [Gene Rodenberry] proves and establishes a precedent that validates what we are marching for because three hundred years from today there we are, and there you are, in all our glory and all your glory! And you CANNOT leave!”
|
Sun May 19, 2013 1:13 pm |
|
 |
Dil
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:48 pm Posts: 8942 Location: Houston, Texas
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
This was good, I mean really good, but I miss the grand sense of fun and adventure the first movie had, therefore I still prefer the 2009 reboot overall. That being said villain wise this was a MAJOR step up from the last movie.
I thought Cumberbatch was really solid as Kahn. Not that I want to hype it up or compare him to Ledger, but the man can act. Maybe it's because I have never seen Sherlock Holmes, so his performance took me by surprise, but I thought he could really deliver the emotion and menace without trying too hard. I found myself feeling bad for him at a certain point, but then when you find out just how ruthless he is you can easily go back to hating him, because he is just that damn convincing.
The rest of the cast is great too, but WOW at that scene between Spock and Kirk towards the end. No lie I was tearing up a bit and I honestly didn't expect it. Very touching indeed. Probably more so the opening scene in the last movie.
|
Sun May 19, 2013 1:39 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Dr. Lecter wrote: Funnily enough the article itself notes that Montalban wasn't ideal, but given the times it was still a small victory. However, now, decades later, Bradley still would have been very happy with Benicio del Toro, yet another Mexican, portraying an Indian. As long as the character is BROWN, Bradley's happy. This is basically what it seems to be about here. This is always my favorite phase of any debate with Dr. Lecter - - the part where he simply gives up any pretence of logic or evidence and goes straight for the manipulation and personal attacks. For a reputedly very smart guy, it never seems to take him very long to go this route.
|
Sun May 19, 2013 1:40 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I fight fire with fire, Bradboy.
I find it insulting that someone would just want Khan to be brown, no matter what brown. You could make an argument that he should be played by an Indian actor, though I'd counter Khan's ethnicity doesn't matter, even less so in the new storyline, but to say the part would have been better off with a Mexican guy is flat-out offensive.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun May 19, 2013 1:46 pm |
|
 |
Flava'd vs The World
The Kramer
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:36 am Posts: 25427 Location: Classified
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
Bradley Witherberry wrote: Flava'd vs The World wrote: So he should have cast an ethnic actor even though they weren't the best man for the part? Now to me, that is far more racist than just getting the best guy for the part. So maybe your own prejudices against white people are what's causing you to be unable to enjoy such an awesome movie? Really? Really?!?!? You might make that argument in regards to some other franchise, but Star Trek has always been a well known pioneer in the use of actors from various ethnic backgrounds to portray a future free of racism where all people work together as equals. Mae Jemison, the first black woman in space has made no secret of the fact that "one of her role models growing up was Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt. Uhura on 'Star Trek.'"And of course, Nichelle Nichols herself was implored by Dr. Martin Luther King to remain on the series as a role model. When she mentioned to Dr. King that she was planning to leave the show, he famously responded: Quote: “What are you talking about?!” and so I told him I would be leaving the show, because; and that was as far as he let me go, and he said, “STOP! You cannot! You cannot leave this show! Do you not understand what you are doing?! You are the first non-stereotypical role in television! Of intelligence, and of a woman and a woman of color?! That you are playing a role that is not about your color! That this role could be played by anyone? This is not a black role. This is not a female role! A blue eyed blond or a pointed ear green person could take this role!” And I am looking at him and looking at him and buzzing, and he said, “Nichelle, for the first time, not only our little children and people can look on and see themselves, but people who don’t look like us, people who don’t look like us, from all over the world, for the first time, the first time on television, they can see us, as we should be!
As intelligent, brilliant, people! People in roles other than slick tap dancers, and maids, which are all wonderful in their own ways, but for the first time we have a woman, a WOMAN, who represents us and not in menial jobs, and you PROVE it, this man [Gene Rodenberry] proves and establishes a precedent that validates what we are marching for because three hundred years from today there we are, and there you are, in all our glory and all your glory! And you CANNOT leave!” Wouldn't MLK then be OK with recasting Khan's race? Like Uhura, it doesn't matter what color Kahn is. If they had made him black or chinese would it have really changed anything? Probably not. If Kirk and Spock are gay does it change anything? Probably not. If Sulu is Korean and not Japanese does it change anything? Absolutely not. Not even the original series could have predicted the social progress we've made in such a small amount of time. And people are free of racism cause they now have other alien species to hate for no reason.
|
Sun May 19, 2013 2:48 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
I really liked this, but I think I liked Iron Man 3 better.
A-
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Sun May 19, 2013 6:48 pm |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68372
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
More.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sun May 19, 2013 6:53 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
 Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
That is enough. Thanks, though.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Sun May 19, 2013 6:59 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|