Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cyel wrote:
Never seen Star Wars ? I wouldn't say you're missing much. When you clear the thick layer of social phenomenon and nostalgia you'll get a silly, infantile story with flat characters, poor dialogue and cringiest attempts at humour.

On the other hand, if you haven't seen Alien/Aliens, the Terminator, Back to the Future or Indiana Jones trilogy ... then you've got some catching-up to do.

And the writing under the title...

Also its a reference to a UK show where celebs discuss something, usually a fairly well known cultural touchstone, they claim to have never done

 Blackie wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

I liked them, and don't understand the hate online for Into Darkness.

Apparently Star Trek fans could'n cope with an unnecessary (for the plot) scene in which there was a semi-naked Alice Eve in bra and panties. Nude scenes in Star Trek are considered taboo by them. Writer Damon Lindelof had to issue an apology for that.

Fans are insane

Gratuitous (near) nudity is generally used to cover weakness in the plot, and this movie had that in spades. It was a weak remake of The Wrath of Khan; that's what ST fans REALLY objected to.

 Vulcan wrote:


Gratuitous (near) nudity is generally used to cover weakness in the plot, and this movie had that in spades.

I don't think so. It's not a 30sec scene that leads to the success or insuccess for a movie. And many things can be used to cover weakness in the plot: an all star cast, massive visual effects, jokes, etc... also the fact that in some biopics the characters portrayed are nearly identical to the real dudes. What do I care if Natalie Portman looks and speaks exatcly like Jackie if the movie is extremely bland? What about Ryan Reynolds in Hobbs & Shaw who nearly killed the movie with his bad jokes? Those examples seem gratuitous solutions to cover weakness in the plot.

When I read about the apology made by JJ I didn't even remember the nude scene and I had already watched the movie 3-4 times. I've also read that some fans yelled about whitewashing as the old Khan is latino. Nonsense at the highest levels.

 Blackie wrote:
I've also read that some fans yelled about whitewashing as the old Khan is latino.

Now it clicks. We're not talking regular Trek fans, are we?

but arent all 'clever' baddies white,posh and English by default these days ? Which is fine as without the Harry Potter films English actors have to earn a living somehow

but back on topic besides True Git I dont recall watching any classic Westerns, might be a UK thing as Bond and ww2 films was the filler of choice on the tellybox


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I've also read that some fans yelled about whitewashing as the old Khan is latino.

Now it clicks. We're not talking regular Trek fans, are we?

surely the old khan is Texan, now thats a glow in the dark can of worms

From the bigger ones I can think of right now:

The Godfather
Harry Potter
Titanic
Avatar
The Avengers (movies)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
Gratuitous (near) nudity is generally used to cover weakness in the plot.

I guess GoT made the switch to where all the 'cool' need to have gratuitous nudity. In general, it feels more like filler as opposed to cover up nowadays.

 Vermis wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I've also read that some fans yelled about whitewashing as the old Khan is latino.

Now it clicks. We're not talking regular Trek fans, are we?

Khan as a character was Indian if memory serves. So yeah, casting Bendysitch Custardplatch did feel a bit off.

Sadly my view on that particular film was literally by some arse on Facebook. Now I’ll never know whether I’d have been anything but largely underwhelmed.

its an okay 3 star flick, its just shoehorning Khan in is fanservice as he could be any genius bad-egg as in the other timeline/movie he had a legit revenge motive directly against Shatner and Co, nows hes a clumsy war on terror allusion

Casting Cumberbatch as Khan Singh was just obnoxious, and for the price of one panning shot to reveal a frozen Ricardo Montalban they could have answered why he doesn't look, act, or sound like Khan at all.

It doesn't help that Into Darkness' characterization is so dismal that everyone else comes off as a misunderstood caricature of their TV counterpart, but at least they're a caricature of their respective TV counterpart.

At least we got Beyond to end the kelvinverse on a high note.

Wasn't JJ trilogy an actual reboot of the saga? So who cares about how was Khan in the old series/movies?

I'm not a fan of Cumberbatch, actually I never liked it but I didn't feel like it was a miscast for this role. And I've also no idea about who Khan is, outside the one portrayed by Cumberbatch.

I have to admit that I can't stand any Star trek (although I haven't seen them all) outside JJ's trilogy, and I absolutely adore the JJ's trilogy instead, especially Into Darkness, so I understand if Star Trek fans have opposite feelings about that movie.

 Blackie wrote:
Wasn't JJ trilogy an actual reboot of the saga? So who cares about how was Khan in the old series/movies?

No.

Khan Noonien Singh in the JJ alta-verse is the same character with the same background, he was just found a decade earlier. Its the same person with an interrupt to his personal timeline (he just happened to be in stasis when the interruption happened).

 Blackie wrote:
Wasn't JJ trilogy an actual reboot of the saga?

Unfortunately it isn't a reboot, not in the same strict sense that Robocop or Ghostbusters were rebooted. The events of the first movie are kicked off by people in the mainline Star Trek timeline traveling back in time, with differences between how things play out from that point onward being caused by the disruption to the timeline. Since everything about Khan's look and personality have to do with him being a warlord from the apocalyptic wars of the grim dark future year of 1994, said time travel event isn't going to change who he was before being frozen.

 Blackie wrote:
So who cares about how was Khan in the old series/movies?

Literally anyone who's suckered into seeing the movie because 'it has Khan in it!'

Jesus, enough of the Trek gak.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Casting Cumberbatch as Khan Singh was just obnoxious, and for the price of one panning shot to reveal a frozen Ricardo Montalban they could have answered why he doesn't look, act, or sound like Khan at all.

I always felt Cumberbatch was great as one of Khan's supermen. Just not Khan himself. He should have been Khan's second-in-command, without us even knowing the Khan connection (Khannection?) until the end of the movie. .

I mean, the Eugenics wars of the late 90’s were pretty chaotic. Records from that era are spotty at best. I certainly couldn’t name more than a handful of the world’s deposed supertyrants, and I was taking HS Government at the time. I see no reason it couldn’t have been one of Khan’s lieutenants, a client Tzar from the Eastern Coalition or an allied techno-caliph from the Central Bloc. I couldn’t tell Napoleon Caesar from Spiro Agnew, or Ivan Stalin Tamerlane from Boris Yeltsin. We only recognize Khan because he was in that movie in the 80’s.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Jesus, enough of the Trek gak.

speaking of Trek jesus' Ive never seen Stand by Me

edit and besides about half a dozen or so ( Christine, Lawnmower and both versions of Carrie and IT ) no Stephen King films/telly

Most of the earlier King adaptions, you really haven't missed much. There's only a handful that were actually good. They've been doing better more recently, for the most part.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
speaking of Trek jesus' Ive never seen Stand by Me

I see what you did there.

 Vermis wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I've also read that some fans yelled about whitewashing as the old Khan is latino.

Now it clicks. We're not talking regular Trek fans, are we?

Nope. He's talking about internet outrage 'fans'.

I don't know if I count as a fan - I've only really seen TNG and wasn't super into it. I did however see the movies, and this one in specific (I liked it, and certainly wasn't "outraged" by it). That being said..

The Alice Eve scene is probably the worst scene I've seen in any movie of any genre in terms of just being out of place gratuitousness. I don't have a problem with nudity or sensuousness in media - quite the opposite, heh.

The problem wasn't that Alice Eve was in her underwear, it was that Alice Eve was suddenly in her underwear for no discernible reason. It was just a very jarring, out of place scene. In one of those movies, there was a scene where Kirk was in bed with some alien women? That scene was much more organic and helped to establish Kirk's character. This one just needed an announcer going "ISN'T SHE HOT, LETS SEE HER IN HER UNDERWEAR" to top it off. It didn't fit in any way the prior or subsequent scenes. I would have no problem with it had they, you know, organically slotted it into the story - which they sort of did with Uhura in the previous movie!

There was a scene like that in Terminator: Salvation. After Moon Bloodgood's character gets shot down, there is a part where it's raining, and she has a sensuous scene with Sam Worthington, wet in the rain. I mention this because it was just like the Alice Eve scene - jarring, gratuitous, and not fitting with the tone of the story.

In this case, the director cut it - probably to avoid an R rating rather than because it was bad storytelling, but now I am just being a jaded jerk.

(A jerk who can't type a few paragraphs without 50 typos, apparently.)

Stand By Me is great, so is the Shining, even if King hated it.

Perhaps especially because King hated it.

Green Mile is also pretty ok.

 Ouze wrote:
The problem wasn't that Alice Eve was in her underwear, it was that Alice Eve was suddenly in her underwear for no discernible reason. It was just a very jarring, out of place scene. In one of those movies, there was a scene where Kirk was in bed with some alien women? That scene was much more organic and helped to establish Kirk's character. This one just needed an announcer going "ISN'T SHE HOT, LETS SEE HER IN HER UNDERWEAR" to top it off. It didn't fit in any way the prior or subsequent scenes. I would have no problem with it had they, you know, organically slotted it into the story - which they sort of did with Uhura in the previous movie!

The scene in the previous movie is at least trying to further establish Kirk as a reckless, promiscuous frat boy type, while still acknowledging the caricature of Kirk who goes gallivanting around the universe punching out lizards and sleeping with green space chicks. It was gratuitous in its own right, but at least tried to shoehorn some exposition in with it. The Into Darkness scene is weird and awkward, and only really tells us that Kirk is someone who will peek at someone changing even when asked not to.