Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Karsa Orlong]

I'm wondering how they will

resurrect Kirk in the next film?

 

 

Um, did you not see the end of this one?  

[pontalba]

Um, did you not see the end of this one?  

Arrrggghhhhh!  ok, right.  I did forget for the moment.  Blip. lol

However, in my defense, I've just watched the original first two films, and the TOS ep with Kahn...brain freeze at work.

 

However.....

I will say this. That bringing back of Kirk with Kahn's super-duper blood is more far fetched than much else I've seen. Human anatomy doesn't change...what I mean is if their blood types clashed, Kirk would have died from receiving blood that wasn't a match.

Of course I suppose they'd say that since Kahn's blood was so bloody (ha ha) superior and super it would over come such mundane problems.

 

[Raven]

But then why use Khan and his 72 people in the story at all?  Why not come up with something original?

 

Exactly (especially after spending the whole of the first film establishing a new, separate continuity).

 

However.....

I will say this. That bringing back of Kirk with Kahn's super-duper blood is more far fetched than much else I've seen. Human anatomy doesn't change...what I mean is if their blood types clashed, Kirk would have died from receiving blood that wasn't a match.

Of course I suppose they'd say that since Kahn's blood was so bloody (ha ha) superior and super it would over come such mundane problems.

 

 

They sign-posted that far too early - and obviously - in the film.

[pontalba]

Exactly (especially after spending the whole of the first film establishing a new, separate continuity).

 

 

They sign-posted that far too early - and obviously - in the film.

Well, they had to get the

Tribble into the story somehow. And, btw, ONE Tribble!? Hah, right, that'll happen......

 

[Palagrin]

Interesting.  A mistake on JJ's part then?

 

What I'm actually wondering is how much JJ wants to hold onto the original Trekkies.  It's a fine line he has to walk, not so easy.

 

Just out of curiosity,  what was it that went over your head? I remember quite a few chuckles on my part, but couldn't say what the connection or instance was.

 

He certainly walks a fine line, and in this case I think he failed. The entire Khan thing was self-referential - pretty much his entire character was built on the pre-existing mythos, which meant that I, who haven't see the Wrath of Khan, did not understand why he was so terrible/evil/villainous, and so his character wasn't as much of a villain as he should have been. Doesn't help that he's sidelined in favour of the rather questionably motivated Commander.

 

No, I wouldn't use as strong a term as pandering.  Self-referential, in jokes, on that level.  Pandering sounds too......creepy.

In-jokes that are only understood by those particularly familiar with the mythos...which is exactly what pandering is, in my book. But I digress...

[pontalba]

He certainly walks a fine line, and in this case I think he failed. The entire Khan thing was self-referential - pretty much his entire character was built on the pre-existing mythos, which meant that I, who haven't see the Wrath of Khan, did not understand why he was so terrible/evil/villainous, and so his character wasn't as much of a villain as he should have been. Doesn't help that he's sidelined in favour of the rather questionably motivated Commander.

 

In-jokes that are only understood by those particularly familiar with the mythos...which is exactly what pandering is, in my book. But I digress...

In common, ordinary usage, pandering implies something of low morals, usually of a sexual nature. 

[vodkafan]

I thought pandering just meant appeasing; to make the pandering persons' life easier?  For instance a bad parent will pander to the childrens wants and not impose discipline . I never thought it was anything sexual?  I have never heard the word used in that sense here anyway.

Edited June 1, 2013 by vodkafan

[pontalba]

I had always associated it with sexual matters, so I checked.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pandering

 

 

pan·der

 (pndr)

intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders

1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.

2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" (New York Times).

 

Of course it can be used in other ways...as the definition says, but the first thing that came to my mind is the #1 listed there. And in any case I wouldn't consider the references in  ST: Into Darkness to be "lower tastes and desires...."

Edited June 1, 2013 by pontalba

[Karsa Orlong]

In-jokes that are only understood by those particularly familiar with the mythos...which is exactly what pandering is, in my book. But I digress...

 

By that criteria, practically every film series, tv series, book series etc plays to its audience.  You can hardly expect otherwise.

[Palagrin]

Depending on which dictionary you use, it yields different results. Some stress the sexual aspect whilst other's merely think of it as "to give gratification". Either way, the context I was using the word was the latter

[pontalba]

By that criteria, practically every film series, tv series, book series etc plays to its audience.  You can hardly expect otherwise.

 

Hah!  So true.  Give the people what they want.  If they don't they are fools, and for the most part fools don't run Hollywood.  Show me the money.

Depending on which dictionary you use, it yields different results. Some stress the sexual aspect whilst other's merely think of it as "to give gratification". Either way, the context I was using the word was the latter

Agreed, however, mostly it is to do with the sexual mentioned above, or a rather hypocritical, untoward sort of activity.  Such as politicians lying, that sort of thing. All undesirable things.  Low in a moral manner.

[Palagrin]

By that criteria, practically every film series, tv series, book series etc plays to its audience.  You can hardly expect otherwise.

 

Oh, certainly, films always play to their audiences. But JJ Abrams had established in the first film that he would deviate from the traditional mythos of the series, thus opening it to a new audience. In Into Darkness, he almost reverses that, relying on the audience's previous knowledge of Khan (and thus is character motivations) to villify him, rather exploring his character in the film. That's what I'm bemoaning.

[pontalba]

But.  It is a parallel sort of universe, so the situations run into will be sort of what my Mother called "the same difference".  Same play, skewed situations.  I'm still on the fence as far as unabashedly endorsing JJ's version.  But I like it in any case.  /sigh/

 

I guess he is relying on previous knowledge...you are right there Palagrin.  Isn't it difficult not to do so?, with such a huge franchise, self referencing aside. 

[Palagrin]

Yes, it's a parallel universe, which also means that a lot of assumptions can/have be(en) broken/cast aside. That's partly what makes it accessible to a new audience.

 

 

Isn't it difficult not to do so?, with such a huge franchise, self referencing aside.

I agree, it's hard not to self-reference, and I'm not saying they shouldn't; everyone loves it when their favourite TV show has some kind of in-joke that only some viewers understand. The problem arises when the majority (if not all) of a character's motivations/personality/development is based on the mythos of the series, as we see with Cumberbatch's Khan, whom we are told is super-powerful, super-evil and yet we never really understand how/why/quite what he is capable and has done. There just isn't much character development in Into Darkness, and that's why, though I felt he was brilliantly acted, I felt he wasn't as big an adversary as he should have been.

[vodkafan]

Lol if this discussion keeps going I will be forced to watch the film 

[vodkafan]

Oh forgot : I was very surprised at your dictionary definition pontalba so I have learned my new thing for the day! 

[pontalba]

Yes, it's a parallel universe, which also means that a lot of assumptions can/have be(en) broken/cast aside. That's partly what makes it accessible to a new audience.

 

I agree, it's hard not to self-reference, and I'm not saying they shouldn't; everyone loves it when their favourite TV show has some kind of in-joke that only some viewers understand. The problem arises when the majority (if not all) of a character's motivations/personality/development is based on the mythos of the series, as we see with Cumberbatch's Khan, whom we are told is super-powerful, super-evil and yet we never really understand how/why/quite what he is capable and has done. There just isn't much character development in Into Darkness, and that's why, though I felt he was brilliantly acted, I felt he wasn't as big an adversary as he should have been.

Actually they did tell of Kahn's background, although it was given pretty fast, I admit.  In the part where Spock contacted the older version of Spock, "old" Spock told him a little about Kahn, that he was most dangerous, and had been "developed" as a super human for the purpose of war.  Kahn and his brothers took over and became dictators, were finally defeated.  They then went into the cryogenic tanks and out into space to wait for a later time. 

The way they were awakened is very different in this new Star Trek, and the ending is different as well.

[Palagrin]

Actually they did tell of Kahn's background, although it was given pretty fast, I admit.  In the part where Spock contacted the older version of Spock, "old" Spock told him a little about Kahn, that he was most dangerous, and had been "developed" as a super human for the purpose of war.  Kahn and his brothers took over and became dictators, were finally defeated.  They then went into the cryogenic tanks and out into space to wait for a later time.

Yeah, background, but seeing is superior to telling. We have very little character development of him in Into Darkness; it relies on canon, which is lazy.

[pontalba]

Yeah, background, but seeing is superior to telling. We have very little character development of him in Into Darkness; it relies on canon, which is lazy.

Looks like we can agree to disagree then.

 

Whoops, now I refreshed, and it's back. 

 

See below post.

 

 

Mods, if you can, or want to, please remove this post......

Edited June 3, 2013 by pontalba

[pontalba]

Darn.  I went to edit, and the post went away.  hmmmm  Oh well.

 

First I'd said Palagrin that it looks like we can agree to disagree.

 

But what I wanted to add was that while it is true that showing is better than telling, there wasn't much wiggle room in the film.  Yes they could have shown something of Kahn's background, but it would have added substantially to the already lengthy time.  Obviously they chose to handle it in the manner they did. 

From your comments it seems you would have preferred a different film, while I enjoyed the one they made.

[Karsa Orlong]

You can please all of the people some of the time etc etc

[Palagrin]

Darn.  I went to edit, and the post went away.  hmmmm  Oh well.

 

First I'd said Palagrin that it looks like we can agree to disagree.

 

But what I wanted to add was that while it is true that showing is better than telling, there wasn't much wiggle room in the film.  Yes they could have shown something of Kahn's background, but it would have added substantially to the already lengthy time.  Obviously they chose to handle it in the manner they did. 

From your comments it seems you would have preferred a different film, while I enjoyed the one they made.

There wasn't much wiggle room in the film because it was poorly paced and scripted; that's what I'm arguing. Sure, you wouldn't be able to add anything to the current structure, the structure needed a complete overhaul!

Hmm, yeah, it's not that I would have preffered a different film, it's just that the execution of the script was poor.

[pontalba]

You can please all of the people some of the time etc etc

Exactly.

[Palagrin]

I thought this was pretty funny and accurate....

[Karsa Orlong]

Are you doing a full rewatch of TOS, pontalba?  I noticed you said you'd been watching a fair bit recently and it's whet my appetite a bit.  I have all three of the remastered seasons on Blu-ray, but I've only ever watched 'selected' episodes from them, and I'm thinking now might be a good time to dive in and watch the whole series again (which I haven't done in years).  I might even watch them with the new special effects, although that feels kind of sacrilegious to me