Of course, it just looked really funny, especially as most of the people in the Kelvin timeline wouldn’t know about all the shenanigans with time travel etcMadner Kami wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 3:07 pm Not a blooper. He was born in 2230 and died in 2263. It just so happens, that this way of displaying the birth- and death-year of a person doesn't denote the age of the person, contrary to every single non-time-traveling being.
Star Trek Beyond
Re: Star Trek Beyond
-
- Captain
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:37 pm
Re: Star Trek Beyond
As an aside, am I the only one laughing at the hubris that went into the ST reboots? Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I can't help it, with what I am seeing here. They wanted it to be like the Nolan films? Boy, were they barking up the wrong tree here...
And as an observation, it irks whenever the language that "SW is coming back" is used. It was always there, it never stopped being there. Not accusing Mr. Chuck of thinking this, mind you, but it is more so frustration with LF's bad policies, because the only customers they want are casuals. You wanna cater to them, however, that's fine, knock yourself out, the corporate reality holds you back. But you can't even keep telling stories set in our favorite universe. And people like Mt. Martin tell you why that is. "It's too hard." His words appear like the final death knell to the industrialized entertainment of spectacle. It is probably why STII is still held up, because the passion and attention to detail shows, from two men who had never watched TOS until they were brought aboard.
BTW, what is it with these Hollywood directors being such jerks? I mean, Mr. Johnson said anyone who doesn't like his film was a "man-baby." Mr. Abrams said the fans should just be "grateful." Mr. Orci said that the fans should "f$%# off." I mean, they seem so completely insecure, it's why I find it hard to get involved in certain communities online, because they're just so toxic. Reflected in certain segments of the fandom and the corporate bosses both. I'll at least credit those like Mr. Martin as being responsive to fans and generally well-mannered. Why is that such an outlier now?
And as an observation, it irks whenever the language that "SW is coming back" is used. It was always there, it never stopped being there. Not accusing Mr. Chuck of thinking this, mind you, but it is more so frustration with LF's bad policies, because the only customers they want are casuals. You wanna cater to them, however, that's fine, knock yourself out, the corporate reality holds you back. But you can't even keep telling stories set in our favorite universe. And people like Mt. Martin tell you why that is. "It's too hard." His words appear like the final death knell to the industrialized entertainment of spectacle. It is probably why STII is still held up, because the passion and attention to detail shows, from two men who had never watched TOS until they were brought aboard.
BTW, what is it with these Hollywood directors being such jerks? I mean, Mr. Johnson said anyone who doesn't like his film was a "man-baby." Mr. Abrams said the fans should just be "grateful." Mr. Orci said that the fans should "f$%# off." I mean, they seem so completely insecure, it's why I find it hard to get involved in certain communities online, because they're just so toxic. Reflected in certain segments of the fandom and the corporate bosses both. I'll at least credit those like Mr. Martin as being responsive to fans and generally well-mannered. Why is that such an outlier now?
- BridgeConsoleMasher
- Overlord
- Posts: 11637
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am
Re: Star Trek Beyond
huh?Captain Crimson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 1:02 pmI mean, Mr. Johnson said anyone who doesn't like his film was a "man-baby."
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/rian-johnson-response-kelly-marie-tran-instagram
The filmmaker responded forcefully after actress Kelly Marie Tran cleared her Instagram due to sustained harassment from angry Star Wars fans.
..What mirror universe?
Re: Star Trek Beyond
Those man-babies tend to make any actual criticism from those that have those drown under they rage and harassment of people involved. Harassing people involved is never right and is both inmature and petty. If you want your voice to be heard and taken seriously don't be a-hole.
"In the embrace of the great Nurgle, I am no longer afraid, for with His pestilential favour I have become that which I once most feared: Death.."
- Kulvain Hestarius of the Death Guard
- Kulvain Hestarius of the Death Guard
-
- Captain
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:37 pm
Re: Star Trek Beyond
That is indeed quite ironic and true the literal loud voices of man-babies make it harder for them to face any genuine criticism, but that's kind of inevitable to a wide-ranging cultural event, and I think it's a function of going online too. My point in the end was still that they have gigantic egos that rarely get addressed. Which pleases me on the rare chance they admit to it. Like Mr. Abrams admitting he could see why people might not like TROS. I just wish he could be honest to where they got the idea for it, since we can ALL see it, but he might not have known. Maybe Ms. Kennedy, Mr. Filoni, or someone else told him. I don't know.Mecha82 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:44 pm Those man-babies tend to make any actual criticism from those that have those drown under they rage and harassment of people involved. Harassing people involved is never right and is both inmature and petty. If you want your voice to be heard and taken seriously don't be a-hole.
Re: Star Trek Beyond
There's an old 1992 Mel Gibson movie, Forever Young, that I was shocked to discover was one of JJ's first screenplays. Granted the plot points aren't very original (1939 pilot is cryo frozen and wakes up in modern day) but I liked the movie for telling an interesting story. And it's a bit more original than what Abrams has since made. Incidentally I don't count Lost as an original idea by JJ since the original idea for the show came from another writer.clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:43 pm Serious question: has Abrams ever had an original idea? Because I am only familiar with him from Trek and Wars, and from what I can see..,
Re: Star Trek Beyond
Definitely a good try and toning down Pine-Kirk was a good choice. It always felt they were playing into public image of Kirk, rather than what was actually portrayed on screen. For example, there's Kirk's "womanizing". In reality, there were two types of Kirk women.
First were his actual love affairs. All are intelligent, accomplished, professional women and with one glaring exception, continue to hold him in high regard and would be willing to rekindle the romance, knowing full well it will be short lived.
The second group are ones Kirk makes use of his charms in order to fulfill a mission and/or save his ship and crew. It's a bit manipulative, and in some cases like Shanna on Triskelion, even a bit sleazy given her complete immaturity in such things. However, it's in service of a purpose. He's not actually a bed hopping Casanova.
This film gives us a Kirk who's a lot more introspective and has some of the doubts we saw in some of the films. I don't think it's a coincidence we have Kirk, on his birthday, sharing a drink with McCoy while discussing his doubts.
First were his actual love affairs. All are intelligent, accomplished, professional women and with one glaring exception, continue to hold him in high regard and would be willing to rekindle the romance, knowing full well it will be short lived.
The second group are ones Kirk makes use of his charms in order to fulfill a mission and/or save his ship and crew. It's a bit manipulative, and in some cases like Shanna on Triskelion, even a bit sleazy given her complete immaturity in such things. However, it's in service of a purpose. He's not actually a bed hopping Casanova.
This film gives us a Kirk who's a lot more introspective and has some of the doubts we saw in some of the films. I don't think it's a coincidence we have Kirk, on his birthday, sharing a drink with McCoy while discussing his doubts.
-
- Captain
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:37 pm
Re: Star Trek Beyond
This times a million. In the day, Kirk was not off banging green women at all times, or fighting everyone he met. That's a cultural stereotype for the uninitiated as much as the way people attempt to imitate him. Or the misquoted line "Beam me up, Scotty." In TOS, it would be more like, "Bring me up, Mr. Scott." He is far more complicated than most people outside the hardcore geek circles grasp, and I think there is no more episode that highlights better than the Kodos one.cdrood wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:10 am Definitely a good try and toning down Pine-Kirk was a good choice. It always felt they were playing into public image of Kirk, rather than what was actually portrayed on screen. For example, there's Kirk's "womanizing". In reality, there were two types of Kirk women.
First were his actual love affairs. All are intelligent, accomplished, professional women and with one glaring exception, continue to hold him in high regard and would be willing to rekindle the romance, knowing full well it will be short lived.
The second group are ones Kirk makes use of his charms in order to fulfill a mission and/or save his ship and crew. It's a bit manipulative, and in some cases like Shanna on Triskelion, even a bit sleazy given her complete immaturity in such things. However, it's in service of a purpose. He's not actually a bed hopping Casanova.
This film gives us a Kirk who's a lot more introspective and has some of the doubts we saw in some of the films. I don't think it's a coincidence we have Kirk, on his birthday, sharing a drink with McCoy while discussing his doubts.
You just sense that Captain Kirk wants to tear Kodos to pieces with his bare hands. And he still hesitates. In the end, he does the right thing. But still admits to that desire deep down. And it is due to the large heart he has, and the desire for justice. Like Captain Sheridan, in that respect. Both have a simplistic view of the world, morality wise, and want to see things get better, but are also not blind to the fundamental biases and flaws we have. It's sophistication like this I think is lacking in certain areas of the modern visual SF genre. While they can be fun, they just don't capture "the soul" like they used to.
Re: Star Trek Beyond
Something similar bugged me about Into Darkness. There was a Star Trek novel call Dreadnaught which was about a xenophobic Starfleet admiral who secretly had a huge warship built with the idea of turning the Federation into a military dictatorship. He not so subtly named the ship Star Empire. It really felt the plot was lifted from that novel without crediting the author.Captain Crimson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:56 pmThat is indeed quite ironic and true the literal loud voices of man-babies make it harder for them to face any genuine criticism, but that's kind of inevitable to a wide-ranging cultural event, and I think it's a function of going online too. My point in the end was still that they have gigantic egos that rarely get addressed. Which pleases me on the rare chance they admit to it. Like Mr. Abrams admitting he could see why people might not like TROS. I just wish he could be honest to where they got the idea for it, since we can ALL see it, but he might not have known. Maybe Ms. Kennedy, Mr. Filoni, or someone else told him. I don't know.Mecha82 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:44 pm Those man-babies tend to make any actual criticism from those that have those drown under they rage and harassment of people involved. Harassing people involved is never right and is both inmature and petty. If you want your voice to be heard and taken seriously don't be a-hole.
-
- Captain
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:37 pm
Re: Star Trek Beyond
I mean, you got accusations over in the SW fandom that LF has been pilfering fanfiction for ideas, and while they treat the old EU that way, and lift ideas from it haphazardly, at the end of the day, there is little hard evidence for it. Though it wouldn't surprise me at the rate Hollyweird is running out of ideas in the face of tighter deadlines and rising costs. You have to make that money back. And that boxes you into a corner. Art can't flourish that way. But as of this moment, we can't say. Maybe the clown show has reached such a level of predictable it is on par with fanfiction. That'd be funny, in a sad way.cdrood wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:29 amSomething similar bugged me about Into Darkness. There was a Star Trek novel call Dreadnaught which was about a xenophobic Starfleet admiral who secretly had a huge warship built with the idea of turning the Federation into a military dictatorship. He not so subtly named the ship Star Empire. It really felt the plot was lifted from that novel without crediting the author.Captain Crimson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 5:56 pmThat is indeed quite ironic and true the literal loud voices of man-babies make it harder for them to face any genuine criticism, but that's kind of inevitable to a wide-ranging cultural event, and I think it's a function of going online too. My point in the end was still that they have gigantic egos that rarely get addressed. Which pleases me on the rare chance they admit to it. Like Mr. Abrams admitting he could see why people might not like TROS. I just wish he could be honest to where they got the idea for it, since we can ALL see it, but he might not have known. Maybe Ms. Kennedy, Mr. Filoni, or someone else told him. I don't know.Mecha82 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:44 pm Those man-babies tend to make any actual criticism from those that have those drown under they rage and harassment of people involved. Harassing people involved is never right and is both inmature and petty. If you want your voice to be heard and taken seriously don't be a-hole.