USS Phoenix
Logo
USS Phoenix forum / Star Trek XI / Star Trek XII - wieści i przecieki
 Strona:  ««  1  2  3  ...  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  »» 
Autor Wiadomość
Elaan
Użytkownik
#2251 - Wysłana: 17 Maj 2013 21:48:55
Odpowiedz 
biter:
Lepsza wiadomość jest taka, że na Home Video tłumaczenie robi już profesjonalista, który robi w tej chwili najlepsze tłumaczenia dla telewizji

No cóż, to ja chyba jednak kino sobie daruję.
Nic tak nie irytuje i nie odbiera przyjemności z oglądania, jak beznadziejne tłumaczenie.
Kor
Użytkownik
#2252 - Wysłana: 17 Maj 2013 22:40:58
Odpowiedz 
Dajcie to mi. Tłumaczenie tak prostego filmu jak ST, szczególnie w wykonaniu Abramsa, zrobię w locie - w czasie oglądania. I zrobiłby to poprawnie przeciętny internauta. Jestem wszelako niemal pewien, że oficjalni tłumacze zdołają się "popisać"

Nieustannie mnie zadziwia, jak w dzisiejszym świecie się zarabia i kto zarabia. Najlepsze zarobki są dla tych, którzy gotowi się sprzedać np. jakiejś fundacji, stowarzyszeniu itp.
Arek
Użytkownik
#2253 - Wysłana: 18 Maj 2013 17:24:48
Odpowiedz 
W jakiej wersji jest ten maraton w Heliosie? Napisy, czy lektor?
Mam zamiar się wybrać, ale jak to ma być lektor, to dam sobie spokój.
Eviva
Użytkownik
#2254 - Wysłana: 18 Maj 2013 17:27:54
Odpowiedz 
Arek
Wiem że to offtop, ale jednak spytam: czemu tak rzadko bywasz na forum?
Arek
Użytkownik
#2255 - Wysłana: 18 Maj 2013 21:06:52 - Edytowany przez: Arek
Odpowiedz 
Eviva
Na forum jestem prawie codziennie, tylko rzadko zabieram głos. Ale od przyszłego tygodnia będę miał więcej czasu, to może się to zmieni
Swoją drogą aż się boję iść na ten twór Abramsa, chociaż mam w pamięci że ST 2009 nie był najgorszy więc staram się nie wyrabiać żadnego zdania przed seansem.
Q__
Moderator
#2256 - Wysłana: 18 Maj 2013 21:21:38 - Edytowany przez: Q__
Odpowiedz 
Arek

Liczymy na to.

ps. Tymczasem Jammer zabrał się do pisania recenzji:
http://www.jammersreviews.com/st-films/intodarknes s.php
(Gdy będzie gotowa zobaczymy ją pod tym samym linkiem.)

A John Kenneth Muir z okazji premiery najnowszego filmu* podaje swój ranking starszych:
Star Trek Week: Ranking The Star Trek Movies

I am out seeing Star Trek: Into Darkness at the very moment this tally posts, so that new movie will not be included in the roster below, but here is my (no doubt controversial…) ranking of all the Star Trek films, best to worst.

Tier One (Meaning Classic, or Great)

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
3. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Tier Two (Meaning good)

4. Star Trek (2009)
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
6. Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
7. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Tier Three (Meaning, not-so-good, and sometimes downright awful)

8. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
10. Star Trek: Generations (1994)
11. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com /2013/05/star-trek-week-ranking-star-trek-movies.h tml

* którego recenzję zapowiada na wtorek:
http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com /2013/05/star-trek-week-final-post.html
Toudi
Użytkownik
#2257 - Wysłana: 18 Maj 2013 21:23:03
Odpowiedz 
Nie wiem czy lektor czy napisy, raczej napisy. Ale 3D... więc dla mnie kino odpada.
biter
Użytkownik
#2258 - Wysłana: 18 Maj 2013 22:05:15
Odpowiedz 
Q__
Skoro już wyciągnąłeś temat ulubionych treków wśród trekkerów, to może zrobię swoją listę, na takiej samej zasadzie jak ta przez ciebie przytoczona.

Tier One (Meaning Classic, or Great)
1. Star Trek IV: Voyage Home.
2. Star Trek: TMP
3. Star Trek 2009

Tier Two (Meaning good)
4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
6. Star Trek: W ciemność
7. Star Trek: First Contact

Tier Three (Meaning, not-so-good, and sometimes downiright awful)
8. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
9. Star Trek: Generations
10. Star Trek Insurection

Tier Four (Meaning, so bad my eyes bleeding)
11. Star Trek: Nemesis
12. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
mozg_kl2
Użytkownik
#2259 - Wysłana: 19 Maj 2013 11:35:57
Odpowiedz 
Q__

Ciekawy ranking. w Moim wykonaniu wyglądałby bardzo podobnie. mianowicie:

Tier One (Meaning Classic, or Great)

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
3. Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Tier Two (Meaning good)

4. Star Trek (2009)
5. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
6. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)


Tier Three (Meaning, not-so-good, and sometimes downright awful)

7. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
8. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
10. Star Trek: Generations (1994)
11. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Arek
Użytkownik
#2260 - Wysłana: 19 Maj 2013 13:09:00
Odpowiedz 
Q__
A według mnie wyglądałoby to tak:
Tier One (Meaning Classic, or Great)

1. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Tier Two (Meaning good)

2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
4. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
5. Star Trek (2009)
6. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Tier Three (Meaning not-so-good, but enjoyable)

7. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
8. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
9. Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Tier Four (Meaning what is this shit?!)
10. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
11. Star Trek: Generations (1994)
biter
Użytkownik
#2261 - Wysłana: 19 Maj 2013 13:35:18
Odpowiedz 
Jak widzę, wszyscy kochamy Nemesis:D
Q__
Moderator
#2262 - Wysłana: 19 Maj 2013 13:52:03 - Edytowany przez: Q__
Odpowiedz 
biter

Bo też trudno nie pokochać tego filmu równie szczerze co Kilkujadek polococktowców*

* pewnie znacie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm3zQPhq3To#t=113s
Jo_anka
Użytkownik
#2263 - Wysłana: 20 Maj 2013 04:01:49
Odpowiedz 
Q__
Moderator
#2264 - Wysłana: 20 Maj 2013 04:10:14
Odpowiedz 
mozg_kl2
Użytkownik
#2265 - Wysłana: 20 Maj 2013 18:49:07
Odpowiedz 
Q__
Moderator
#2266 - Wysłana: 20 Maj 2013 20:06:12
Odpowiedz 
mozg_kl2

Ile razy to wrzucałem.... ;]

(Ostatnio nawet na main site.)
mozg_kl2
Użytkownik
#2267 - Wysłana: 21 Maj 2013 17:33:37
Odpowiedz 
Q__

nie wiedziałem. Kajam się.

Recenzja z Nowej Fantastyki

"Obejrzeliśmy. Daję filmowi 4,5/6.

Zabawa jak zwykle przednia, zwłaszcza obserwowanie interakcji między bohaterami (trochę humoru a la dr Sheldon Cooper), efekty specjalne pierwsza klasa, ładne nawiązania do klasyki, ale...

Ale mam problem z konstrukcją filmu. Sprawia wrażenie kolejnego odcinka serialu - brak rozwinięcia, zamiast tego po prostu migawkowy wstęp, a następnie już bardzo prosta fabuła, w której wiele ma się dziać, a jeszcze więcej wybuchać.

No i główny Schwarzcharakter więcej mówi, niż robi, więc nie sprawia wrażenia wielce groźnego.

Aha - fani starszej serii będą mieli większą uciechę - mam wrażenie, że momentami zbyt hermetycznie."
Q__
Moderator
#2268 - Wysłana: 21 Maj 2013 17:56:15 - Edytowany przez: Q__
Odpowiedz 
mozg_kl2

mozg_kl2:
No i główny Schwarzcharakter więcej mówi, niż robi

Od razu widać, że Trek.

ps. recenzja Kethinova; nawet pochlebna:

My Rating - 8

Problems
- Spock claims that Kirk shouldn't save him from the volcano because it would violate the Prime Directive. But Spock's entire intervention to save the natives from the volcano is itself a violation of the Prime Directive!
- Nothing in the altered timeline satisfactorily explains why Khan's ethnicity so radically changed.
- At one point Kirk says that since the Enterprise is at warp, the Vengeance can't catch up with them as a general principle, however that entire notion contradicts a whole host of prior episodes which have often depicted ships chasing each other at warp speed.
- Travel time between Qo'noS and Earth was way too short. They're at warp for all of a few minutes at most and then suddenly they drop out of warp only 237,000 kilometers from Earth!

Factoids
- The title of the film was an attempt to be clever by making "Star Trek" a verb rather than a noun, so as to "trek into darkness."
- Peter Weller, who plays Admiral Marcus in this film, also played John Frederick Paxton in Ent: Demons and Ent: Terra Prime.
- Christopher Doohan, the son of James Doohan (the original actor for Scotty), shares a scene with the new Scotty (Simon Pegg), appearing beside him as a transporter chief.
- According to Spock, a five year mission has never been attempted before.
- According to Carol Marcus, Kirk had a brief relationship with Nurse Chapel, but Kirk didn't even remember her name!

Remarkable Scenes
- Kirk and Spock retreating to an underwater Enterprise on the pre-warp planet.
- The Enterprise revealing itself to the natives in order to rescue Spock just as Spock completes his work rendering the volcano inert.
- Kirk to Spock upon being informed that he violated the Prime Directive: "Oh come on, Spock. They saw us. Big deal!"
- Kirk gushing to Spock about the possibility of being selected for the spiffy new "five year mission."
- Pike regarding Kirk: "You think you're infallible. You think you can't make a mistake. It's a pattern with you. The rules are for other people. And what's worse is you're using blind luck to justify your playing god."
- Pike's death.
- Spock: "There is no Starfleet regulation that condemns a man to die without a trial, something you and Admiral Marcus are forgetting. Also, preemptively firing torpedoes at the Klingons' home world..."
- Scotty: "This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers."
- Kirk to Chekov: "You're my new chief. Now put on a red shirt." Chekov, with a look of terror on his face: "Aye captain..."
- Kirk making a snap decision not to use the special torpedoes to assassinate Harrison but instead to attempt a risky landing on Qo'noS to apprehend Harrison to satisfy due process.
- Kirk ordering his lieutenants to remove their red shirts, perhaps in the hope that will increase their odds of survival? ;)
- Spock revealing that he mind melded with Pike so that he could experience death vicariously.
- The Klingons ambushing the landing party.
- Harrison saving the landing party and then surrendering to them upon learning of the exact size of their arsenal.
- Kirk attempting to beat up Harrison only to fail to even leave a mark after multiple blows.
- Harrison revealing his true identity as Khan and outing Admiral Marcus' secret plans.
- Admiral Marcus attacking the Enterprise with the Vengeance.
- Scotty sabotaging the Vengeance.
- Kirk and Khan jumping from the Enterprise to the Vengeance.
- Young Spock calling old Spock to get advice about Khan.
- McCoy: "Damn it man, I'm a doctor, not a torpedo technician!" Count 38 for "I'm a doctor, not a (blah)" style lines, which McCoy was famous for.
- Khan taking out Admiral Marcus, taking over the Vengeance, and demanding his crew returned to him.
- Spock beaming armed torpedoes to the Vengeance and detonating them.
- The Enterprise falling to Earth.
- The seat belts appearing on the bridge. If only they'd had those in a few of the other 700 or so hours of Star Trek. ;)
- The gravity shifting all over the ship as it falls to Earth.
- Kirk: "You used what he wanted against him. That's a nice move." Spock: "It is what you would have done." Kirk, regarding saving the ship by exposing himself to radiation: "And this is what you would have done. It was only logical."
- Spock: "Khan!!!"
- The Vengeance crashing into San Francisco.
- A year later, Kirk retaking command of the Enterprise and embarking on the five year mission that he had hoped would be assigned to him originally.

My Review
The sequel to Star Trek XI's reboot corrects some of the prior film's sins, repeats others, and commits some new ones in the process. The biggest improvement was the hyperactive pace of the previous film being toned down a bit. This gave the film time to flesh out Kirk's and Spock's altered characters a bit more, doing much to set them apart from their counterparts in the original universe. Minor characters get more appropriate things to do too. The acting performances of Sulu and especially Chekov annoyed me last time around, but no longer. Probably the best minor character moment was Scotty objecting to classified weaponry on the Enterprise on the grounds of possible unintended technical consequences. Was he just jealous about the loss of control, or did he sincerely believe his caution to be warranted? Both the writing and the actor leave that open to interpretation, which I liked. The most important improvement from last time around is this film provides more texture for how Kirk went from cadet to fully commissioned officer with the rank of captain in one day. We already knew from the previous film that Admiral Pike made Kirk into a sort of pet, but here we're presented with a much more nuanced take on their relationship, which establishes the idea that Kirk's rapid rise through the ranks has been unconventional, controversial, and difficult for Pike to continue to justify. At the beginning of the film, Pike has had enough and finally resorts to threatening to demote Kirk all the way back to cadet. These scenes do much to establish the credibility that was lacking the previous film's plot, though in my view they don't go quite far enough.

While this film corrected the main issues with the previous film's character writing, it repeats most of the previous film's other missteps. First and foremost, we still have no on-screen evidence one way or the other as to whether this new universe exists apart from the old one or supersedes it. Also Scotty's magic transporter formula continues to defy my suspension of disbelief. As Emory Erickson stated in Ent: Daedalus, if it were possible to reliably beam people from one planetary system to another several light years away, then why have starships? Khan beaming directly from Earth to the Klingon home world was completely absurd. Likewise, the film once again had difficulty accurately portraying the speed of warp drive, with total travel time at warp speed between Earth and the Klingon home world apparently lasting only minutes. And just like the last film, this film is as sloppy with continuity as it is with its future tech. Admiral Marcus' involvement in Section 31 was a pathetic writing blunder compared to the smooth operation that Sloan ran on DS9, as it's stated that Admiral Marcus was motivated solely by the desire to establish a military-industrial complex. As such, there was no reason to tell Kirk about Section 31's existence at all, as Admiral Marcus could have satisfied his objectives without disclosing that detail. Likewise, it seems nobody on the Enterprise had ever cracked open a history book on the Eugenics Wars, or they'd have known precisely who Khan was well before it was necessary for Old Spock to educate his younger self on the matter.

What's worse, this film commits a striking new sin: it's considerably more unoriginal. For starters, the quickly chewed up and forgotten pre-warp civilization's portrayal at the beginning of the film strongly resembled the similar one in Star Trek IX: Insurrection. But more obviously, the vast majority of this film was a blatant rehash of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. While it was nice to see Carol Marcus in a strikingly different role and it was also nice to see the new character of Admiral Marcus overshadow Khan as the main villain for most of the film, those tweaks just weren't enough. The film just couldn't resist peppering itself endlessly with nostalgic references to its predecessor. Some were tasteful and clever, others were painful and tacky. Added together, the story isn't really much more than the sum of its parts: a more action-packed take on Wrath of Khan with a mildly interesting exploration of New Kirk's reckless youth as opposed to the much more interesting exploration of Old Kirk's decaying youth. Most of the film feels as though it's merely going through the motions of what a somewhat hollow but glitzy rehash of Wrath of Khan is supposed to look like. Even the title of the film doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose other than to simply sound cool. But that disappointing lack of depth, heart, and originality is by no means a showstopper. This film, just like the one it follows, is once again an undeniably fun action romp. It's just sad that these fun action romps must continue to come at the unnecessary expense of the intelligent storytelling and thoughtful embrace of the franchise's rich history that the series used to enjoy."

http://www.kethinov.com/startrekepisodes.php?serie s=7&movie=12

Inna sprawa, że Kethinov b. specyficzny ma gust filmowy, najwyżej np. ceni FC, prawie na równi z nim GEN, potem kolejno: TSfS, INS, TWoK, NEM, XI, ID właśnie, TMP, TUC, TVH i - po długiej przerwie - TFF.
mozg_kl2
Użytkownik
#2269 - Wysłana: 21 Maj 2013 19:54:21
Odpowiedz 
Q__
Moderator
#2270 - Wysłana: 21 Maj 2013 21:02:23 - Edytowany przez: Q__
Odpowiedz 
Zapowiadana recenzja Muira:

Cult Movie Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

“There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that's not who we are...”
Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), in Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013).

I now understand that the thing which really primed me to enjoy and appreciate Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) is...Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby (2013).
I screened that movie adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel on opening day, and was blown away by how relevant, experiential, and intimate the director had made the familiar material.
Although I love and admire the original book, there can be little doubt that the legions of high school students reading it right now find it a chore, or worse: a “dead text.”
But negative reviews be damned, Luhrmann has revitalized Gatsby and made it live and breathe for modern audiences. Rap music, 3-D photography, and other contemporary stylistic touches have rendered it entirely of the moment, and will open up an understanding of Fitzgerald’s work for generations yet to come.
For example, Luhrmann’s modernization of the work permits viewers to understand that the American Dream hasn’t changed much hanged in ninety years -- nor has Wall Street -- and thus help us to identify with Nick and Gatsby in a way that a traditional period piece simply would not.
Well, Star Trek lives again too, and in very much the same fashion I describe above, thanks to the efforts of J.J. Abrams and Into Darkness.
Although it may be sacrilege to say so in some circles, there are probably folks who would also consider Star Trek a “dead text” at this point. The franchise began almost fifty years ago, and the milieu which gave rise to it -- Kennedy’s Camelot -- began and ended before I was even born.
However, in ways large and small, epic and intimate, Star Trek: Into Darkness breathes fresh life into the franchise, and makes it relevant to today’s world. Although the narrative concerns the future of the 23rd century, the movie is really about today -- the world around us -- and its message is transmitted in the way that contemporary audiences can best receive it: in 3-D, with lots of lens flare, and in J.J.’s preferred mode of expression: pastiche.
The film’s story is not -- as I had feared and fretted -- all about a revenge-mad terrorist armed with a weapon of a mass destruction, but rather about the ways that heroes respond to acts of terror, and fear.
In short, Into Darkness is a spell-binding, thrill-a-minute film that accomplishes the one thing that the 2009 reboot did not, and which I desired to see more than anything else in a sequel. Star Trek: Into Darkness restores the Gene Roddenberry franchise as a vehicle for social commentary by noting that the bad guys win when we go “dark” in response to bad deeds.
Accordingly, the film plays as a recap of the difficult "War on Terror" years since 2001, years in which America condoned torture, holds suspects in perpetuity without trial, launched a pre-emptive war, and has relied on advanced, push-button technology to destroy enemies from afar, in violation of law and perhaps morality. Into Darkness is about who we have let ourselves become…all out of irrational, overwhelming fear and anger.
But, as Star Trek has long suggested, the best way to battle darkness is to bring it into the light…to expose it for what it is. To my delight, this J.J. Abrams film understands and transmits that notion in a fashion that a dozen interchangeably “dark” superhero movies simply do not. Kirk in this movie is angry about his loss and looking for vengeance, but because of his friendship with Spock, Scotty, and others, he is soon able to see that revenge cannot be the quality that defines him. He's better than that.
We should be better than that too.
The purists will complain -- just as they complain over Gatsby, and just as they complained when The Next Generation first premiered in 1987 -- but in their stubborn refusal to accept the passage of time and embrace modern audience appetites and movie techniques, these folks will also miss out on the best and most relevant Star Trek movie in possibly thirty years.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
In Star Trek: Into Darkness, the U.S.S. Enterprise under command of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) undertakes an unauthorized mission on the inhabited world Nibiru.
In contravention of the Prime Directive, Kirk and his crew, including the half-Vulcan first officer, Spock (Zachary Quinto) attempt to save the primitive inhabitants from extinction by volcanic eruption. The mission to quiet the eruption is a success, but with qualifiers. The natives, for instance, see the Enterprise in their sky, and begin the worship of it as a God…
Upon return to Earth and Starfleet, Kirk is called on the carpet by his superior at Starfleet Command, Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood), for his actions on Nibiru. Those incidents were reported by Spock, who Kirk saved from certain death on the planet. Spock believes Kirk should not have violated Starfleet Regulations, while Kirk believes that Spock should have trusted him.
Meanwhile, the shadowy John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) -- an agent for the secretive security branch of Starfleet called Section 31 -- goes rogue and launches two terrorist attacks against his former superiors. He destroys an archive in London, and attacks command personnel in San Francisco.
Captain Kirk requests permission to pursue the terrorist to the end of the galaxy if need be, and in that quest is provided a new, highly-advanced weapon by Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller): 72 highly-advanced stealth torpedoes.
Marcus orders Kirk to go to the edge of the neutral zone near Klingon space, where he is to fire the torpedoes from a safe distance at an uninhabited province on the alien home world of Kronos. There, intelligence suggests, Harrison is believed to be hiding.
Spock objects to a kill order for a man who has not even stood trial for his crimes, and Scotty (Simon Pegg) resigns his commission rather than take aboard 72 weapons of unknown origin that could damage the Enterprise.
Upon reaching the neutral zone, Kirk reconsiders his orders, and takes a team down to Kronos to arrest and bring back Harrison.
This act which enrages Admiral Marcus, and opens up a world of secrets involving Section 31, the true identity of Harrison, possible war with the Klingons, and the existence of the first battleship in Star Fleet history…`

“I surrendered to you because, despite your attempt to convince me otherwise, you seem to have a conscience, Mr. Kirk.”
One important thing to understand about Into Darkness is that it is indeed the victim of a terribly generic marketing campaign.
Previews and trailers stress a mad man, acts of terrorism, and even the dreadful line “I will have my vengeance,” which -- if memory serves -- does not appear in the film.
As I described in my post, Threading theNeedle, the advertisements and posters evoke memories of The Dark Knight (2008) and Iron Man 3 (2013).
Similarly, the title Into Darkness is also outright dreadful, and a deliberate misnomer. This is not a film about Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise crew traveling into darkness, but rather about finding the antidote to the darkness in their lives -- in friendship, for instance -- and staying true to their convictions and beliefs in the process. The movie isn’t angst-ridden or broody, or particularly dark for the apparent sake of narrative and thematic “maturity.” It isn’t a film about ugliness. Instead, Into Darkness is about finding the best within oneself when times are worst, and that path of light being the key to dispelling encroaching darkness.
In terms of the social commentary, Star Trek’s (2009) destruction of Vulcan is now, clearly, the 9/11 of the franchise and the galvanizing incident behind the plot line of the sequel. Star Trek: Into Darkness follows-up that context, and reveals a Starfleet Command in chaos and confusion over how to respond to looming threats.
There is a direct, multi-faceted parallel between the years 2001–2013 and the events in the new Trek timeline. I’ll enumerate as many as I can, for they are legion.
Q__
Moderator
#2271 - Wysłana: 21 Maj 2013 21:21:11 - Edytowany przez: Q__
Odpowiedz 
Point 1: The John Harrison/Bin Laden connection
John Harrison, the villain of Into Darkness is a former agent of Section 31, a shadowy covert organization in Starfleet. He was "awakened" by Admiral Marcus and trained in 23rd century technology and intelligence to help Marcus countenance looming threats such as the Klingon Empire.
Osama Bin Laden, the late terrorist who struck America on September 11, 2001, is, in some circles, believed to have been trained by the CIA (corollary to Section 31, in Star Trek) to battle the Russians in Afghanistan with the mujahedeen.
In this case, Harrison also turns against those who trained him, and uses that training and knowledge to strike back at his former masters.
After two devastating terrorist attacks on Starfleet and Earth, in London and San Francisco, Harrison escapes without a trace to an uninhabited province in unfriendly territory.
Historically-speaking, we know that Bin Laden sought sanctuary in the rough mountain patch separating Pakistan from Afghanistan, particularly the inhospitable landscape of Tora Bora.
Bin Laden’s proximity to a sovereign country possessing nuclear capability and a population by-and-large hostile to America, became a central issue in tracking him down, and contending with him.
That precise dynamic plays out in Star Trek Into Darkness as Kirk must negotiate his proximity to the Klingons, and not allow Starfleet to become visibly involved in an incursion into such sovereign territory. Provoking the Klingons -- like provoking Pakistan -- could mean "all out war."
Finally, John Harrison is called his full-name only once in the film, and though it is abundantly familiar to Star Trek fans, it plays differently in terms of the post-9/11 milieu. Khan Noonien Singh sounds not entirely unlike Osama Bin Laden. Three word names, both consisting of apparent Middle Eastern-sounding origin. This resemblance may seem slight, but played out in this alternate universe timeline, I believe the connection is significant.

Point 2: Photon Torpedoes and Drones
The way to get and destroy Harrison, ostensibly, is by use of new, modified 23rd-century torpedo in Star Trek: Into Darkness.
These torpedoes can be fired from a great distance to destroy the terrorist. As others have written persuasively, this aspect of the Star Trek plot boasts a clear corollary with our continued drone attacks in foreign countries, including Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This “push-button” war raises questions of morality in both circumstances.
In neither instance is there a declared state of war, and therefore no permission to launch decapitation strikes deep inside sovereign territory.
But in both cases there exists the opportunity to kill with impunity, without repercussions, and to do it in such a way as there are no casualties for the “heroes.” This opportunity tends to make war seem "clean" and "pretty," especially to a detached citizenry. No pilots endangered, no boots on the ground. Just death from above, and from a great distance.

Point 3: The Klingons and Iraq
Following Al-Qaeda’s surprise attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration immediately began conceiving a way to legitimize a war…with Iraq.
Al-Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan and had no links to Iraq or its despotic ruler, Saddam Hussein, and yet the Administration began to lobby for war with that state.
This fact is revealed in Bob Woodward’s text Bush at War, which notes that “Before the attacks, the Pentagon had been working for months on developing a military option for Iraq…Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately.”
In Star Trek: Into Darkness, Admiral Marcus is similarly, unhealthily obsessed with the Klingon Empire and believes that war with the Empire is inevitable. He is looking ahead to a next, possible enemy, instead of dealing with the enemy that already exists (John Harrison).
Accordingly, Marcus and Section 31 have begun to hyper-militarize Starfleet, and laid the ground-work for a new war against an enemy who has not yet struck. The U.S.S. Vengeance, a super-battleship, has been secretly commissioned for a war that, as of yet, has not been launched.
In fact, a torpedo strike into Klingon territory would be just the thing to give Marcus his desired war, wouldn’t it?
And at one point in the film, Marcus yells at Kirk that if war comes, Starfleet needs a decisive man like him making decisions, calling the hard shots.
In other words, he's the decider.
And if Starfleeet dare pick someone else, someone open to facts instead of fear (someone like John Kerry or Jim Kirk perhaps), you might risk "nuclear mushrooms" over American cities.
The corollary to the War on Terror Age couldn't be more precise.

Point 4: The Private Soldier
Star Trek: Into Darkness also suggests that because Starfleet boasts clear regulations and orders of conduct that its officers must heed and obey, other, less “principled” soldiers may be required in the event of war with the Klingons...to fight in accordance with Marcus’s cut-throat new principles (learned from Khan?).
Accordingly, U.S.S. Vengeance is manned with “private” security forces, just as a private security firm, Blackwater operated in Iraq.
The idea here, roiling under the surface is that Starfleet Regulations -- like the Geneva Conventions -- are "quaint" relics of a bygone time, not to be honored in a time of war-mongering and fear-hysteria. Good soldiers no better than to break the laws of engagement, but what about hired guns?

Point 5: The Torture Debate
In Star Trek: Into Darkness, Captain Kirk accepts John Harrison’s surrender, and then spends the next minute-and-a-half beating him, attacking his prisoner for his murderous deeds in London and San Francisco.
But Harrison is stoic, and endures the abuse without pain, or even expression. Finally, Kirk must stop. He has achieved absolutely nothing through his display of brutal and primitive violence. He has not weakened Harrison, and he has not learned anything whatsoever about Harrison’s motives or plans.
Again, this moment in the film is very clearly a corollary for the on-going debate about the use of torture on “enemy combatants.”
Notably, Kirk only succeeds in hurting himself -- embarrassing himself, too -- in physically attacking his prisoner, a man in his custody and therefore under his protection. This brutal physical assault has the effect of making him look weak, not Khan.
Worse, it makes Kirk lose the moral high ground for a time.
And again, that’s exactly what happened to America at Abu Ghraib and in covert CIA bases the world over. Instead of living up to our ideals about how to treat prisoners, we sacrificed our ideals out of fear and anger.
One of the most intriguing aspects of Star Trek: Into Darkness is that its writers show the courage to diverge from our dark recent history in their idealized version of the future. Kirk eventually realizes it is wrong to kill a man from a distance without benefit of a trial. He hunts down Harrison/Khan and captures him for just such a trial (though we don’t see it). The best way to deal with terrorists is in the light of day, not in the shadows.
In real life, we know that Bin Laden was hunted down and executed without trial, an act of revenge that in no way illuminates America’s true and hopeful nature as "the shining city on the hill." The point is that we have to be better than our enemies in our beliefs. That's what attracts allies to America; that's what makes us strong.
Star Trek: Into Darkness thus suggests that the “good guys” win when they remember their true values, not when they descend to the level of barbarian, or give in to passing surges of blood-thirst or vengeance.
This subtext represents a very Star Trek-kian principle, and I am happy to see it enunciated in an age of such thoughtless violence. Every other blockbuster movie is about a hero meting revenge for some terrible wrong. It's nice to see a blockbuster, for a change, where the heroes stop short of vengeance, take a breath, and remember who they are.
Q__
Moderator
#2272 - Wysłana: 21 Maj 2013 21:21:52 - Edytowany przez: Q__
Odpowiedz 
The Mirror Crack’d: Into Darkness as a Pastiche affirming the universality of the Kirk/Spock Bond.
J.J. Abrams’ preferred mode of operation, I would submit -- based on his film career -- is pastiche.
You can see it clearly in Super 8 (2011), a film that dynamically apes the Spielberg filming style, and uses and adapts elements from Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982). I have read some complaints by Star Trek fans about the ways that Into Darkness “apes” previous moments in Star Trek history, namely the denouement of The Wrath of Khan (1982).
A pastiche, of course, is an artistic work “in a style” that imitates that of another work or artist. But I would submit where a film like Nemesis apes the plot-line of The Wrath of Khan, Abrams goes one better with his frequent, post-modern nods to the Trek franchise.
His Star Trek is set in a different timeline, in an alternate universe (not unlike the Mirror Universe, for instance), so some events actually have legitimate cause to repeat. History is going to repeat itself, more or less. And it is in the excavating of that "more" or "less" that Abrams seems to have so much fun.
The point seems to be that no matter how much the "new" time-line alters the course of cosmic events -- like the destruction of Vulcan -- some events are indeed pre-destined, or pre-determined Kirk and Spock are meant to join up…in every universe. And Kirk is meant to be Captain of the Enterprise in all realities too, at least for a time.
John Harrison/Khan fits this same template of pre-destiny.
In any universe, Kirk and Khan are going to meet, clash, and he will only be defeated by, in the words of Prime Spock (Leonard Nimoy), "a great personal cost."
The only thing that can defeat this powerful villain, is the combined force -- and friendship -- of Kirk and Spock. In the canon universe, it is Spock who dies to save the Enterprise. In Into Darkness, it is Kirk who goes into the warp core to face his own death.
This is not a blind, empty repetition of Star Trek lore, it is an outright assertion of the importance of the Kirk/Spock relationship, and its value in the face of villainy.
Those viewers who see Into Darkness as merely ripping-off the Wrath of Khan are missing the point entirely. Instead, the “mirror” scene of Into Darkness at the reactor core is a beautiful statement about Kirk and Spock’s connection in any reality. They will always be friends and they will always be willing to sacrifice themselves for their family: the Enterprise crew. Khan will never win, in any universe, because he lacks the special bond that Kirk and Spock share.
Quite frankly, we could not get to this vision of a friendship that spans universes without Abrams’ penchant for pastiche, without his willingness to appropriate sign-marks and symbols from Trek history and re-purpose them for today's audiences
The very thing that some Trekkers complain about as a weakness is, in fact, a strength of the film, and also of Abrams’ vision of Star Trek. He is not repeating what has happened before, he is revealing to us how, in the face of a “mirror” universe, some values such as friendship -- and Starfleet Regulations -- endure.
With Kirk and Spock together on the Enterprise, the universe shall, more or less, “unfold as it should.”
This appreciation for Abrams’ modus operandi does not preclude me from criticizing certain aspects of the drama, however.
Although everyone has bent over backwards to appreciate Benedict Cumberbatch’s villainous performance as Khan, I would suggest his success in the role arises from his own qualities as an actor, and not the writing of the character.
I recognized him as a strong presence in the frame, in other words, but not as Khan. I recognize Pine and Quinto and the others as the Enterprise crew, but the writers have brought almost no “old series” signifiers to allow permit long-time viewers to recognize Khan as the same man from “Space Seed” or Wrath of Khan.
Would it have been too hard to have Cumberbatch quote Milton, or Dante, or Melville, just to remind us old folks he’s the same fellow from Space Seed?
There is precious little of “Khan” in the writing of the Khan character in Into Darkness, which makes him seem a more generic villain than need be. It’s a good thing they cast an actor with such strong physical and intellectual presence, but watching the film, I never felt like this Khan was the same man I had met before. Cumberbatch brings immense focus to the role, but not the larger-than-life theatricality of Montalban. I missed that aspect of the character, as well as his sense of literacy and history.
I also feel that some of the changes in this time-line are going to cause problems for the writers down the line. If a man can trans-warp beam from San Francisco to the heart of the Klingon Empire, there is no need for Star Trekking of any kind whatsoever.
Somehow, future movies will have to address the fact that the transporter device is now a better, more efficient means of travel than starship and warp drive.
But frankly, these are quibbles with a movie that is exciting, emotionally-affecting, funny, and incredibly entertaining. The social commentary about the post-911 age permits this film to live up to Star Trek’s most noble tradition of being about something more than spaceships and lasers, and J.J. Abrams’ penchant for pastiche transforms the film into a meditation about the depth of the Kirk and Spock bond, no matter the universe, no matter the situation.
So like The Great Gatsby, Star Trek endures, and finds a meaningful place in the pop culture of the 21st century.
And again, once more the sky's the limit...the five year mission begins again. I can't wait to see "what's out there...."

http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com /2013/05/cult-movie-review-star-trek-into.html

ps. ciekawe co na to Kolega Admin Picard?
Mav
Użytkownik
#2273 - Wysłana: 22 Maj 2013 14:05:19 - Edytowany przez: Mav
Odpowiedz 
Damon Lindelof przeprasza za scene, w której Carol Marcus jest w samej bieliźnie: http://www.filmweb.pl/news/Scenarzysta+nowego+%22S tar+Treka%22+przeprasza+za+Carol+Marcus+w+bieli%C5 %BAnie-95914

Picard był nią oburzony, więc to są przeprosiny kierowane także do niego

ps. Zobaczcie sobie w komentarzach, co na ten temat wypisują ludzie. Wiem, że niektóre wpisy są wulgarne, ale czy trochę nie mają racji? (chodzi o ogólny kontekst, że fani robią aferę z byle czego). Mi ta scena nie przeszkadza, ponieważ obok niej stoi Kirk, co traktuję jako nawiązanie do ich romansu z oryginalnej linii.

Dorzucę jeszcze fotke z kultowego "Obcego", może da to do myślenia tym, co są oburzeni tą golizną w 12:

o
mozg_kl2
Użytkownik
#2274 - Wysłana: 22 Maj 2013 17:22:49
Odpowiedz 
Mav

Za to kocham amerykę. Tylko w tym kraju w jednym serialu, mogą latać fucki, flaki, mięcho, zabijanie się ale już kobieta w bieliźnie to zło i pornografia. Przy okazji utrwalono stereotypu fana treka, który nie wychodzi z piwnicy i kobiete widzi w niemieckich firmach przyrodniczych.
Q__
Moderator
#2275 - Wysłana: 22 Maj 2013 19:31:55
Odpowiedz 
Mav

Mav:
Dorzucę jeszcze fotke z kultowego "Obcego",

Ripley jest fajna, ale nasza Carol fajniejsza:

http://www.startrek.com/article/meet-alice-eve-car ol-marcus-in-star-trek-into-darkness

Eviva
Użytkownik
#2276 - Wysłana: 22 Maj 2013 20:09:50 - Edytowany przez: Eviva
Odpowiedz 
Q__

Ja wolę Ripley. Ma w sobie więcej fajeru i nie jest sztampową niebieskooką blądyneczką.
Q__
Moderator
#2277 - Wysłana: 22 Maj 2013 20:22:46
Odpowiedz 
Eviva

Eviva:
Ma w sobie więcej fajeru

Coś w tym jest... Co prawda Ripley na ekran wprowadził Scott, ale jej silę pokazał najbardziej Cameron... I właśnie dlatego się cieszę, że kandydatka na nową trekową kapitan właśnie pod skrzydłami Camerona pierwsze SFowe kroki stawiała...
biter
Użytkownik
#2278 - Wysłana: 22 Maj 2013 22:25:59
Odpowiedz 
Jeśli mówimy o tych dwóch "rozbieranych" scenach to Ripley nie ma konkurencji. Jest o lata świetlne bardziej seksowna - w tej scenie - od Marcus.
Q__
Moderator
#2279 - Wysłana: 23 Maj 2013 17:59:21 - Edytowany przez: Q__
Odpowiedz 
Tymczasem swoją analizę filmu zdążył zamieścić Graham Kennedy, twórca DITL; i jego ocena wypada pozytywnie (4/5):

"So, was it good? Yes it was!

On the whole, this is a worthy sequel to the first of the reboot films. That one was kind of an origin story for the new universe, giving us what amount to origin stories for both Kirk and Spock and showing us how they overcame their differences and difficulties and came to be on the bridge of the Enterprise together.

Now we get a "pride goeth before a fall" Kirk has had the big chair for about a year now, and he's very much played it his way - breaking the rules, doing what he thinks is right no matter what. And more importantly, getting away with it. It's pretty clear that Admiral Pike has been acting as something of a protector to Kirk, shielding his career from harm despite the many occasions where he's done things his own way. This follows on from the first film well, because it was to reintroduce this kind of maverick spirit into Starfleet that Pike went out and recruited Kirk in the first place. But as the opening shows us, even Pike has started to worry that Kirk goes too far, pushes too hard, trusts to luck too much. And when Kirk oversteps the mark, Pike lets him take the fall.

But of course, this isn't enough for Kirk to really learn his lesson. When Pike is killed Kirk pushes his way back into the big chair, and sets out to do what he always does - fight back, rules be damned. So he rushes in like a bull in a china shop, and really does get damn near everybody killed. It works well with his character arc.

Spock also gets a chance to grow, facing both his own death and Kirk's and being forced to admit that he cares about these people no matter what he says about being unable to feel emotions. All of the cast are doing well at reinventing these roles whilst keeping them grounded in the original depictions, but Quinto is perhaps the single best performance in this series so far. He does a magnificent job as Spock. In fact my only quibble here is that this Spock resorts to asking old Spock for a little advice concerning Khan. It's obviously intended as a nice nod to the original characters, and it's just an in-passing thing - old Spock doesn't simply hand them a way out of the problem or anything. Still, it's not a great choice because it undercuts Quinto's Spock, making it look like he's going to run back and dip the well of secret knowledge any time things get tough.

The other characters notably all get their moments. Chekov gets to be promoted to chief engineer, Sulu gets to sit in the big chair, Uhura gets to help with the Klingons and at the end with Khan, Scotty gets to sabotage the Vengeance and save the Enterprise. As in the last film, the writers are very careful to make sure that every character gets at least one significant moment of their own.

Then we have Benedict Cumberbatch's Khan. This is one place where Into Darkness doesn't quite match up to Star Trek II. Cumberbatch does a great job as Khan... but as written, this Khan is just not as strong a character as Montleban's Khan was. You can excuse it because the two have different back stories - Star Trek II Khan was dealing with decades spent in a hellhole planet whilst he watched his "family" die, including his wife, all the while blaming Kirk. He was a raging ball of hate aimed at one target, and it made the core of the film a very personal conflict. Here, Khan's rage isn't directed at Kirk at all. Kirk is just kind of in his way, even on his side for part of the time. So that conflict isn't really there the way it was, and it makes Khan's vengeance quest a bit directionless. It's still good, and still a good performance... just not a fantastic one.

Much will be written and said of the "death scene". It really does tread a fine line between simply ripping off Star Trek II and doing its own thing. Flipping it and making it Kirk who dies rather than Spock is a nice touch, and I especially like how they alluded to this with each character saying "I only did what you would have done". That aspect ties it into the theme of the film and the development of the characters really well, with Kirk showing that he can make the hard choices and not depend on some grand stroke of intuitive luck, and Spock showing that he can do the smart and devious thing to win in an otherwise impossible situation. Personally I think they mostly succeeded with this scene. Yes, it does become it's own thing and work within the context of this film and avoid simply plundering last one. But at the same time, it just doesn't have the depth of emotion for the audience that Star Trek II did. A lot of that is because we just haven't spent as much time with these characters as we had with the originals, and a lot of it is because Star Trek II had the guts to end the film on that note, with Spock dead and the crew grieving. Here, we get the death scene and then replay this universe's version of Star Trek III over the last 10 minutes. So what sense of loss is there only lasts a few minutes and then Kirk is okay again."

http://www.ditl.org/pagfilm.php?Film=ST-ID&ListID= Reviews
Q__
Moderator
#2280 - Wysłana: 25 Maj 2013 08:14:22
Odpowiedz 
W kwestii gołej baby:
http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/23/sexy-or-sexist-how -star-trek-into-darkness-turned-heroines-into-dams els-in-distress/
(Zwróćcie uwagę na wyniki ankiety: dominują opinie, że to co prezentuje JJ nie było niczym złym, a przynajmniej mieści się w granicach dopuszczalności. Więc bez paniki.)
 Strona:  ««  1  2  3  ...  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  »» 
USS Phoenix forum / Star Trek XI / Star Trek XII - wieści i przecieki

Twoja wypowiedź
Styl pogrubiony  Styl pochylony  Obraz Łącza  URL Łącza  :) ;) :-p :-( Więcej emotikon...  Wyłącz emotikony

» Login  » Hasło 
Tylko zarejestrowani użytkownicy mogą tutaj pisać. Zaloguj się przed napisaniem wiadomości albo zarejstruj najpierw.
 
Wygenerowane przez miniBB®


© Copyright 2001-2009 by USS Phoenix Team.   Dołącz sidebar Mozilli.   Konfiguruj wygląd.
Część materiałów na tej stronie pochodzi z oryginalnego serwisu USS Solaris za wiedzą i zgodą autorów.
Star Trek, Star Trek The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager oraz Enterprise to zastrzeżone znaki towarowe Paramount Pictures.

Pobierz Firefoksa!