Superman Film Watchdogs
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

4 posters

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend Wed May 22, 2013 6:43 am

non_amos wrote:What I don't understand is that if this is a 'love letter to WOK' then you'd think JJ would've learned a lesson from Singerman? Sure, that was Bryan Singerman's baby but still..........it wasn't exactly hidden either. Surely JJ knew how that turned out? So why similarly go make a film 'chock-full' of homages? I'm hearing this film is better than the first but simultaneously it doesn't sound as original as the first. Even this past Sunday morning I saw a film critic's report on CBS where even he made references to the homages & it showed a clip of Scotty looking at giant fish in an aquarium which was obviously meant to channel STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. He went on to say that if you were a 'non-fan' then you'd really enjoy all the explosions & big space spectacle but if you were a fan then you'd be disappointed. Now JJ has stated in the past that he was never really a 'fan' so maybe it shows here? But you'd think he'd learn a lesson from Singerman too.
The difference is that Singerman was ("vague history" bullshit aside) intended to be a continuation of the Donnerverse. Abrams is clearly rebooting Trek and giving people new stuff while throwing fans of the old franchise a bone with the WOK material. He's basically appealing to newbie fans and the old guard at once. At least theoretically so; in a practical sense, wide audiences connected to the reboot but will completely miss the WOK stuff while old school fans feel disenfranchised by the reboot and patronized by the WOK references. As others have said, that may ultimately harm STID's bottom line but not the rebooted franchise's long term prospects.

This is different from what Singer did, where he played the nostalgia card while simultaneously disavowing everything the character has ever stood for. However, wide audiences didn't connect to the nostalgia factor because they don't remember STM anymore... or, if they do, they sure didn't appreciate the shitting that Singer took upon a legend. That killed the immediate film. Beyond that, story developments within Singerman made it virtually impossible to go forward with the Donner continuity in a way that bore any similarity to the common perception of the Superman mythos. I think some of us believe Singer secretly intended to shoot the franchise in the foot. But if you're a skeptic, ask yourself that if you were determined to ruin Superman's big screen prospects, don't bother asking yourself what you would do but ask instead what you would differently from Singer. If that was my mission, I'm hardpressed to think up something Singer didn't already attempt.

But Bryan Singer can fuck off; JJ Abrams (Trek notwithstanding), Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder are who I want to hear more from with these geek franchises.
thecolorsblend
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks Wed May 22, 2013 7:09 pm

Apologist Puncher wrote:It was an ok film, filled with head-scratching stupidity.

Now as to Khan's appearance, and the answer above about plastic surgery, I would have to question WHY he would need to do that at all. In the film, they mention he is over 300 YEARS OLD. Did they really think people would say "Hey, that guy looks like that guy from 300 years ago! It HAS to be him!!"? And, from what they implied, he had been working covertly for Weller's character this whole time. So worrying about people seeing him shouldn't have been an issue. Just another case of trying to make the character fit the actor, instead of vice versa.
You could argue it was done so he wouldn't attract attention of any kind because of his strong resemblance, even if nobody believed it was really a dictator from 300 years.

Simon Pegg was easily the highlight of the film. He got 90% of the laughs, and you missed him when he wasn't onscreen.
Yeah, I thought he was much better handled this time. He actually was written more as a guy of his profession than just some goofy eccentric comic relief.

My biggest beef with the film is the ending. Weller's character was THE top guy in Starfleet, and he had broken every single rule they lived by. He even attempted to murder HUNDREDS of innocent people. And there is no mention of how this would have rocked Starfleet to it's core? No fallout from his betrayals? Instead we get a "One Year Later" middle finger?

No.
It's sort of a cliche in Trek to have a top admiral corrupt. What was most baffling though was that all the action was taking place right next to Earth's moon. You'd think Starfleet would be seeing EVERYTHING going on. They're at the heart of the Federation, with heavy security and dozens of starships docked in several different spacedocks. Even today NASA would immediately detect some crazy shit happening so close.

thecolorsblend wrote:
non_amos wrote:What I don't understand is that if this is a 'love letter to WOK' then you'd think JJ would've learned a lesson from Singerman? Sure, that was Bryan Singerman's baby but still..........it wasn't exactly hidden either. Surely JJ knew how that turned out? So why similarly go make a film 'chock-full' of homages? I'm hearing this film is better than the first but simultaneously it doesn't sound as original as the first. Even this past Sunday morning I saw a film critic's report on CBS where even he made references to the homages & it showed a clip of Scotty looking at giant fish in an aquarium which was obviously meant to channel STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. He went on to say that if you were a 'non-fan' then you'd really enjoy all the explosions & big space spectacle but if you were a fan then you'd be disappointed. Now JJ has stated in the past that he was never really a 'fan' so maybe it shows here? But you'd think he'd learn a lesson from Singerman too.
The difference is that Singerman was ("vague history" bullshit aside) intended to be a continuation of the Donnerverse. Abrams is clearly rebooting Trek and giving people new stuff while throwing fans of the old franchise a bone with the WOK material. He's basically appealing to newbie fans and the old guard at once. At least theoretically so; in a practical sense, wide audiences connected to the reboot but will completely miss the WOK stuff while old school fans feel disenfranchised by the reboot and patronized by the WOK references. As others have said, that may ultimately harm STID's bottom line but not the rebooted franchise's long term prospects.
Yup. Whatever problems there are, it's still at least salvageable enough to grant a third film and as I said earlier there is NO WAY that Paramount is going to miss out on hyping up the 50th anniversary. It'll likely be a celebratory film, but hopefully it won't be so overt like STID. A great example is FIRST CONTACT, released during the 30th anniversary where it pushes the characters further while at the same time gives audiences an idea of the genesis of Star Trek where humanity first achieves light speed. It's a nearly perfect example of making a film for both the fans and regular audiences.

This is different from what Singer did, where he played the nostalgia card while simultaneously disavowing everything the character has ever stood for. However, wide audiences didn't connect to the nostalgia factor because they don't remember STM anymore... or, if they do, they sure didn't appreciate the shitting that Singer took upon a legend. That killed the immediate film. Beyond that, story developments within Singerman made it virtually impossible to go forward with the Donner continuity in a way that bore any similarity to the common perception of the Superman mythos. I think some of us believe Singer secretly intended to shoot the franchise in the foot. But if you're a skeptic, ask yourself that if you were determined to ruin Superman's big screen prospects, don't bother asking yourself what you would do but ask instead what you would differently from Singer. If that was my mission, I'm hardpressed to think up something Singer didn't already attempt.

God knows what the hell Singer would have cooked up for a follow-up. Better off not knowing.
James Stocks
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 103
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos Thu May 23, 2013 1:43 am

James Stocks wrote:

God knows what the hell Singer would have cooked up for a follow-up. Better off not knowing.

I don't have a link handy & I'm not sure there is any one specific link but rather this whole thing may be Internet hyperbole but I believe there was at least an element of truth to some of it. Thankfully this never saw the light of day & instead we're now getting a real Superman film. Nevertheless I think the proposed concept went something like this:

1) General Zod- played by Jude Law (because he has some 'vague' resemblance to Terrance Stamp).
2) Brainiac also involved (which Brainiac is anyone's guess).
3) Zod & company to channel Stamp & company.
4) Brainiac downloads himself into Jason the super-twerp thus possessing him.
5) Singerman, played by BJ the Bartender, then has to kill Jason in order to kill Brainiac (yes, you heard that correctly).

So some combination of the above plot points were to have been used, supposedly. I'd like to know though how Singer would've reasoned out using both Zod & Brainiac in the same film? But be thankful we didn't have a sequel to Singerman where Singerman was forced to kill his own son! Man! That would've made for good popcorn entertainment in a big summer tentpole now wouldn't it? Suspect



non_amos
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks Mon May 27, 2013 2:11 am

I remember the Jude Law thing. I think he would make a good Zod, but that was then.

I do remember thinking if there had to be a follow-up for SR, I would like there to be consequences for his going to Krypton. He's at the ruins, and Brainiac just happens to be around and spots Supes, believing he's one of the survivors of Krypton. Supes then journeys back to Earth, with Brainiac following him because he believes Supes is heading for a planet with Kryptonian survivors, only to find that it's just Earth with weakling humans. He takes his time then lands on Earth, presenting himself as a friend of Krypton and taking advantage of Superman's desire to meet someone of his own kind or at least someone who was a friend. Supes is relieved, but cautious.

Killing off Jason sounds intriguing, but having Superman kill him sounds is way too much. I would take a different approach. Maybe Superman is losing a fight, Brainiac is about to blast him for good, but Jason jumps right in front of the blast, sacrificing himself for Supes. The blast drains Brainiac's energy, which gives Superman a fighting chance.

I wouldn't include Zod. That's too much. Maybe Lex would play a role, either siding with Supes to help him fight Brainiac. Having him help Brainiac would be too much of a callback to Hackman and Stamp's collaboration.
James Stocks
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 103
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend Mon May 27, 2013 3:03 pm

Either the kid lives or the kid dies.

If you keep the kid, there's no way for Bosworth's character to do much of anything besides fade into the background in sequels and probably look for a less risky career. Routh's character should be involved with the kid's life... but not at the expense of Cyclops's acknowledged role as the boy's true father figure. This option opens up a huge can of worms.

If you kill the kid, Bosworth, Routh and Cyclops ALL suffer because they've ALL lost a son. That's something a parent never truly gets over. Do you have any idea what the divorce rate is for married couples who lose a child? This option also opens up a huge can of worms.

If you keep the kid, you've killed the mythos. If you kill him, you've got other problems. There's just no way to move forward in a positive way with a child in the picture. So the obvious solution is to, um, not introduce a kid.

And this is not to speak of the dramatic dead end that is the Donnerverse (so much pathos has already been mined) or how the tone of the Donnerverse doesn't really lend itself to more heavy sci-fi things like Brainiac or whatnot so if you introduce Brainiac, the tone must be adjusted from the light realism Donner employed to something else or otherwise you have to change Brainiac to fit Donner's reality. What you cannot do is insert Brainiac as is into the Donnerverse. Something's gotta give.

Time to reboot!
thecolorsblend
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks Mon May 27, 2013 8:05 pm

Agreed. I do see dramatic potential in what would have been Singer's follow-up, but a lot of it wouldn't work because SR already screwed it up in the first place. Particularly the kid. In SR he is such a non-entity of a character that any follow-up would have to do some serious weight lifting in order to make it effective and I don't think Singer had it in him to pull it off. As controversial as the kid is, I believed there was some potential to the character but it's completely wasted in the final form, like many other ideas present in the film. Singer doesn't justify the kid's presence other than a vague promise of getting more into that in the next film as if he believes it's a sure thing.

Funnily enough, this goes right back to Star Trek. He kept saying his second film would be his "Wrath of Khan", which was the film that introduced Kirk's son David, who is killed in the next film. Singer also gave nods to WRATH OF KHAN in X2 with the final act carrying the same structure of the climax with Jean's sacrifice and the ending where she recites the monologue that Xavier did in the first film, mirroring Spock reciting Kirk's monologue. X2 pulled it off effectively, but it would have become predictable of Singer to go that route again in SR2.
James Stocks
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 103
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:33 pm

Saw it today. Never was a core Trek fan so this wasn't necessarily a midnight premiere for me. Anywho, I enjoyed it. I see the complaints and get what core Trek fans are pissed off about but I dug the interplay between Pine and Quinto.

One thing that seriously grated me was Nimoy. (A) It felt perfunctory and (B) the alternate timeline needs to stand on its own at some point. Constantly bringing back Nimoy is something of an admission that this iteration of Trek cannot survive without tangible connections to the original. Whether it can or not, it should strive to do so. I love Nimoy, I dig the original timeline and I don't have blind adoration for the new one but it's time to cut ties with what came before.

One thing that should have worked for me but didn't was Khan. I dig that portrayal and whatnot but although I am always happy to get a Star Trek villain who doesn't constantly quote from great works of literature, Khan is the guy who started all that. I can't remember Khan ever doing so in STID though.

On that note, the Khan twist seems kind of arbitrary. This could have been a completely original villain and I would argue it would have worked just as well, if not better. I predict there will be fan edits that remove all references to Khan and, for once, I kinda have to come down with those fan editors. This is a plot twist that simply didn't need to happen.

Anyway. Greatest Trek movie ever? No. But it's pretty good and, apart from some apparently common reservations, I had fun with it.
thecolorsblend
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:52 pm

James Stocks wrote:The writers explained that the reason Khan looks different is because Admiral Marcus put him under plastic surgery, because if he started walking around in public somebody would recognize him since he's one of Earth's most vicious dictators from the past, or at least attract some attention over his resemblance. Problem is that they never explain that in the film, thus that invited a lot of criticism of whitewashing of what's supposed to be an ethnic character.
This reminds me of something from Trek2009. They basically said that the reason the alternate timeline was starting to realign somewhat with the original one (ie, Kirk joining up with Starfeelt, Spock eventually serving under him, etc) is because the universe was attempting to correct what had gone wrong or some such. They then tossed out some fuzzy science that people a lot smarter than me say actually has considerable merit.

But, as with the Khan thing, they never fucking explained it. It was apparently in some comic book or novel or something. But guess what assholes? I shouldn't have to do anything but watch the damn movie to follow the story. Now, the timeline matchup thing is small potatoes but the Khan thing really is relevant. I'm sure that's probably in some fucking comic book too and, sorry, the movie should give me what I need to know. I don't need everything spelled out for me but important shit like that ought to be covered.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Abrams wanted to turn Trek into a true blue multimedia franchise which tells basically one story across more than one medium. Star Wars in some ways is better geared for that and I sure hope he improves his editorial process because if he leaves important stuff like this out, it'll only weaken the whole.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Like I said, it's an ok film, but I would put 'IM3' waaaay ahead of it so far this summer. I have a feeling 'Man Of Steel' is going to be the best thing I see this year. I really do.
The more summer films I see, the more convinced I become of the same.
thecolorsblend
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:10 am

thecolorsblend wrote:This reminds me of something from Trek2009. They basically said that the reason the alternate timeline was starting to realign somewhat with the original one (ie, Kirk joining up with Starfeelt, Spock eventually serving under him, etc) is because the universe was attempting to correct what had gone wrong or some such. They then tossed out some fuzzy science that people a lot smarter than me say actually has considerable merit.
Yeah, that's a theory many brought up because when the film came out the TV show LOST was playing with the idea that time has a way of making a course correction if someone tries altering the past. I don't think that holds a lot of water though, because Spock's home planet is destroyed and his race becomes an endangered species. That's a pretty big fucking event for time to try to "correct".

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Abrams wanted to turn Trek into a true blue multimedia franchise which tells basically one story across more than one medium. Star Wars in some ways is better geared for that and I sure hope he improves his editorial process because if he leaves important stuff like this out, it'll only weaken the whole.
Yeah, basically the franchise is split in two. Paramount has rights to the films while CBS has the TV shows. They have some sort of mutual agreement so it hasn't been too rocky, but it definitely got in the way of Abrams trying to expand his mark beyond the films. From what I understand he tried to get CBS to play ball by shutting down all their merchandise related to the original show, because he wanted all focus to be on his films and felt that toys still based on Shatner and such would compromise things. CBS refused, because the original show still has a strong following and they're not going to just shut down their whole program when it's doing good business. That does make sense, you didn't see Lucas stop making toys of the original trilogy in favor of the new prequels. Either way, with Abrams moving onto Star Wars he likely has a better chance expanding his branding beyond the films, assuming Disney approves.


For some fun, here's a video where the folks at RedLetterMedia point out every possible reference/rip-off that the new Trek movie did of previous TV shows and films. Some I might call coincidences, but others like a space ship ambushing a meeting in a building is strikingly similar.

James Stocks
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 103
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:20 pm

The building getting shot up by an aircraft thing reminded me of Godfather III.
thecolorsblend
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:24 pm

James Stocks wrote:Yeah, that's a theory many brought up because when the film came out the TV show LOST was playing with the idea that time has a way of making a course correction if someone tries altering the past. I don't think that holds a lot of water though, because Spock's home planet is destroyed and his race becomes an endangered species. That's a pretty big fucking event for time to try to "correct".
Eh. I found it convincing enough to believe from the point of view of completely BS/unknowable science.

James Stocks wrote:Yeah, basically the franchise is split in two. Paramount has rights to the films while CBS has the TV shows. They have some sort of mutual agreement so it hasn't been too rocky, but it definitely got in the way of Abrams trying to expand his mark beyond the films. From what I understand he tried to get CBS to play ball by shutting down all their merchandise related to the original show, because he wanted all focus to be on his films and felt that toys still based on Shatner and such would compromise things. CBS refused, because the original show still has a strong following and they're not going to just shut down their whole program when it's doing good business. That does make sense, you didn't see Lucas stop making toys of the original trilogy in favor of the new prequels. Either way, with Abrams moving onto Star Wars he likely has a better chance expanding his branding beyond the films, assuming Disney approves.
I sure hope he doesn't think licensing for previous Star Wars iterations will cease simply because he's on the scene now. I could see maybe phasing out something like Clone Wars (which I and zillions of other people have absolutely zero stake in) but the idea of deleting even the prequel stuff is probably off the table. Toys and other merch were a big factor in Disney's decision to buy Lucasfilm to begin with. I get what he's trying to achieve here but this kind of scorched earth approach would only really work with something like BSG or something similar.

James Stocks wrote:For some fun, here's a video where the folks at RedLetterMedia point out every possible reference/rip-off that the new Trek movie did of previous TV shows and films. Some I might call coincidences, but others like a space ship ambushing a meeting in a building is strikingly similar.

I could usually give a crap about him but I thought this review was amusing enough.
thecolorsblend
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:11 am

Roberto Orci on why they cast a pasty white guy as Khan.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Tumblr_mnebv4bCSY1rm73mfo1_1280

Right, and whitewashing is much better. It's ironic how the writers in the 1960s were a lot more forward thinking than these current folks. Khan wasn't some racial stereotype demonizing his ethnic background. He had a ethnic background, but Trek never put a lot of emphasis onto that. He was actually one man among 70 others who were all from different regions of the world, just like how the heroes in Star Trek are all from different regions. See the point? He wasn't representing his ethnic background or skin color, he was representing the genetically engineered people who believe they're superior just because they were engineered.

But then again this guy is a truther, so I rarely ever take anything he says seriously.
James Stocks
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 103
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  non_amos Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:28 am

I see something else in what you quoted Orci as saying. He 'doesn't want to offend anyone especially of middle Eastern descent'. See where I'm going with this? In other words, political correctness. Or is it more? I mean, I'm sure Orci doesn't want to be the victim of a suicide bomber, right? So go & make the guy a 'honkey' & all is well with the world. But what is it with this trend in the media and Hollywood to try & sugar-coat this subject?! Have they forgotten 9/11?! And if I'm not mistaken this ain't the first time something like this has been changed due to 'Middle Eastern sensibilities'. I'm not suggesting racism but I'm not suggesting living in FEAR either! Cut the crap already Hollyweird! And besides, Khan was basically an Indian character played by a Hispanic man so why go the fear route in the first place? Evil or Very Mad
non_amos
non_amos
Christopher Reeve
Christopher Reeve

Posts : 2305
Points : 2717
User Reputation : 250
Join date : 2010-10-16

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  thecolorsblend Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:44 am

It's a very revealing comment. Don't get me wrong, you'd have to go a hell of a long way to find someone further right than me but on one level, the guy really does have a point. If they'd cast someone ethnic in the role, odds are some "news" rag out there probably would've played the race card. But on another level, I guess we're supposed to forget about the potential for the same exact accusation in replacing an "ethnic" character with just another whitie.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we must go political on this, to me this is exemplary of everything the left is all about... which is why I'm enjoying liberalism eating its own tail in this instance.
thecolorsblend
thecolorsblend
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 4257
Points : 5802
User Reputation : 287
Join date : 2010-12-02

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:55 am

I can see his point, and there probably would be a group calling foul for "demonizing" an ethnic group, but I think he's overestimating it. Not only would the complaining come from a vocal minority (no pun) but that it would be really difficult to pin it on STAR TREK of all franchises because its always been known for its very progressive views on humanity since the beginning. It would be a big "so what?" when the heroes are comprised of all ethnic backgrounds, even non-humans. It is very much a case of a man's leftist views getting in the way common sense. Trek is supposed to be beyond that sort of backward thinking. They might mean well, but they need to look at the bigger picture, especially when it comes to writing Star Trek stories.
James Stocks
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 103
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  James Stocks Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:59 pm

'Star Trek Into Darkness' Promotes Bestiality Says Pastor Kevin Swanson (Audio)

Well, that's one way of criticizing a film. He probably should stay away from SUPERMAN RETURNS.
James Stocks
James Stocks
George Reeves
George Reeves

Posts : 748
Points : 835
User Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-05-11
Age : 103
Location : The Toy Shop

Back to top Go down

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS* - Page 3 Empty Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS NEWS THREAD *SPOILERS*

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum