Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

...

You always fall asleep on movies that bore you and then you're wondering about such trivialities when they pop up in conversation, right? That's ok, I understand. Amongst its many flaws, TPM commits the unforgivable sin of being abysmally boring for a SW movie.

So what is a terminal degree?

 

Also, this wasn't a "triviality." It was supposed to explain how Anakin was freed to train with the Jedi, and as such was a major plot point. At least, that's what I think. Since, again, this whole sequence was pretty indecipherable.

 

TBH, I only recall that if Anakin won, he would be freed. But now that you mention it, I can't recall what would Watto win if he lost. Since I'm not about to watch TPM just to re-watch the scene, can't you just chalk it up to lousy writing and ease your mind?

 

Invidious, are you being serious right now?


No. No, I can't.

 

I seem to remember Qui-Gon betting the ship. But I haven't seen TPM in a while so maybe that was the novelization (lol) or I just imagined it.

 

I'm just curious why Anakin didn't just steal Qui-Gon's lightsaber and torture Watto mercilessly for the ship parts, and then I realize how ridiculously stupid/hilarious/awesome that would've been.

 

Original deal:

If Anakin wins, Watto keeps winnings minus parts needed for ship.
If Anakin loses, Watto keeps ship.

( Something important happens in here regarding Qui-Gon's motivations. )

Race day:

Watto is betting on Sebulba. Qui-Gon and Watto make bet. If Sebulba loses, Qui-Gon gets a slave. If Sebulba wins, Watto gets pod.

 

The point is that the betting scene is just a flagship example of the terriblenss that is The Phantom Menace. From the very beginning, where the trade federation doesn't just use an odorless, colorless gas to kill Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, to the idiotic landing battledroids on the otherside of the planet, to boring galactic trading issues being discussed on star wars CSPAN, it is all terrible. And then AOTC continues to perpetuate the same terrible.

Star Trek 09 was an fun film with an engaging cast, a followable plot (despite red matter and other flaws), and an overall enjoyable ride. STID wasn't as good and it has more issues with why Khan chose certain action, but you knew what was happening and it is still enjoyable to watch. The prequels are simply not. The prequels are just a jumbled series of events with the main goal of makijg the galaxy look like it did right before A New Hope.

 

I think the point is that "terminal degrees" ain't what they used to be. If some people could follow the plot of TPM but others couldn't, why does that mean the problem is with the film?

 

How many terminal degrees are WormieSaber's worth?

 

One authority fallacy, or 50 RLM points.

 

I figured this would be a good thread to let off some steam about this, since this is the STID thread. For first off, I for one loved STID. Loved it a TON.

Some of you may have seen a story that was published today in which Simon Pegg publically lashed out at some hardcore trekkies for supposedly voting STID the "worst Star Trek movie" at a Star Trek convention after being asked to vote on all of the ST movies by the convention organizers or some such.

Well, being also a massive prequel fan myself, I partially loathe Pegg for not disliking the prequels, but for going out his way CONSTANTLY of publically ridiculing them.

Well this evening, I decided to tweet Pegg (who I do not follow, nor do I intent to follow him....to make myself clear). I basically decided to tweet to him to stop being a hypocrite for attacking people who happened to vote their dislike to STID (who was by the way quoted as saying several curse words directed at these people in the article from today), yet proudly displays his hate for the prequels like no tomorrow. (this was all part of the content of the tweet in less words).

I actually just figured he is a celebrity with one zillion followers and likely gets tons and tons of tweets every day and doesn't even read half of them. But to my amazement several minutes later he tweets back at me and says (re: the prequels) "because they are ****, **** head"

Wow. I am still both surprised and shocked he actually tweeted me back, and actually a little taken aback that he had the audacity to name call me, when I never really name called or threatened him, only called him hypocritical. As a matter of fact, I also had a second tweet to the first one in which I made myself clear that I actually love Into Darkness and I disagree with the fans who voted it as being poor, only they should be entitled to their own opinion without be name called by Mr. Pegg. I mean, you don't see Ewan McGregor or Sam Jackson waging a public war against fans who hate the prequels.

Simon Pegg is classless, and a jerk. I did love him in STID and thought it was a great movie. Its just ashamed that one its stars has to be such a jerk publically.

 

If you spend enough time on Twitter, you always turn into a classless jerk. He's probably responding to every single tweet and his frustration is ramping up.

As for STID v. PT, I don't know which is better and I don't care because both are pretty bad. Yeah, STID is easier to follow than the PT's half-formed ideas (e.g., Sifo-Dyas or whatever that was supposed to be), but that's because it's just a dumb action movie. They're almost always easy to follow because they're tailored for the broadest appeal possible.

 

Those dere be fightin words. I propose we take up our pitchforks and show Mr. Pegg he can't just call one of our own a ****-anything without riling up the hive of scum and villainy otherwise known as the JC. Let's spamblast this redshirt's account into a special type of hell that would make the comments pages of youtube look like child's play.

 

Let's just go to sleep and blog about it in the morning instead.

 

To be fair, Barriss, it sounds like he did make a pretty accurate assessment of the PT's quality.

 

I hate myself for caring enough to disagree here, but that statement is factually incorrect. Yes, I don't care if you or anyone hates the PT, no big ******* deal. However, some do. Boo hoo.

 

Because except for arthouse productions or stories that are built around a narrative sleight-of-hand as central to the story they want to tell (eg Memento), the plot should be comprehensible. That it isn't to any significant portion of people means the filmmaker's probably failed somehow. In the case of TPM, it's certainly not an excusable failure, either, as it's not like they were instead devoting that time to something like interesting, three-dimensional characters or believable dialogue.

 

I knew Simon Pegg was cool.

 

Only people with "terminal degrees" and such in your own personal social circle claim to be unable to comprehend it ( though the true problem appears to be boredom and its potential effects upon recall of the plot ). Unless you're out there polling on a daily basis, or have some way of mind-melding with the entire population, that leaves pretty much everyone else - surely a not insignificant portion of people. Somehow "I don't like Jar Jar, etc. so this sucks" has been deemed an insufficient criticism, so as the designated dork in the room TPM is now guilty of literally anything. There are some on this site who find themselves able to comprehend the plot, but unfortunately they don't seem to be considered "significant" enough or indicative of the views of any significant group, for some reason.

 

This doesn't imply what you think it does. I am glad a significant portion of the population can understand the plot. But the thing, is, there wasn't supposed to be any confusion about this. So even if 75% of people understood the plot perfectly well, it's still pretty atrocious that a quarter of people did not. Saying that you and others understood is not an argument against the fact that too many people did not understand.

Besides which, do you honestly think the plot is perfectly comprehensible? That being the case:

1. Why didn't Nute Gunray just make Padme sign the treaty the first time he captured her?

 

He had to update his spacebook status first.

 

It was an entertaining film. It's got good special effects, the actors did a good job, the plot wasn't terrible for what it is. But what really prevents it from being a great film or one of my favorite films is that it doesn't really go anywhere. It's like a rollercoaster -- there's highs and lows but when it's over, you're back to exactly where you started. Granted, there were a few changes --> they introduced Carol Marcus (who had a disappointingly small role, in my opinion) and they killed off Admiral Pike . Besides that, everything goes back to the way it was at the start of the film. Khan is frozen again, Kirk gets the Enterprise back with every member of his crew, Starfleet and the planets are unchanged. It just struck me as kind of pointless. There was some character development for Kirk (and a little for Spock as well), but it didn't feel like the story moved forward at all. In fairness, though, maybe that will be remedied with the next film -- such as showing some fallout from Kirk being brought back with Khan's blood for example.

The Star Wars prequels, whatever faults you may perceive them to have, at least felt more like a journey to me. By the end of TPM, many things had changed -- the Jedi were aware of the Sith, Qui-Gon and Maul were dead, Anakin had been found and begun his Jedi training, Palpatine had ascended to the Chancellorship, Padmé succeeded in vanquishing the Trade Federation (and earning their ire), etc. All of these things not only showed substantial advancement from where our characters were at the beginning of the film, but were also integral to the progression of AOTC and ROTS.

Star Trek Into Darkness is just too much of a crowd-pleaser for my tastes. It doesn't take any risks or shake things up. It has a very "Status Quo is God" feel to it where it seems like by the end of the film, the reset button was pushed. And too much old ground is covered again.

The one thing I hated was Spock screaming "Khan!" because I found it ridiculous, much worse than the "No!" in ROTS (which was at least in character for Anakin who is extremely emotional and demonstrative). Plus, my god, that man looks like a rabbit when he yells.

 

Watching Pegg's reaction to the Trek criticism is eliciting a fair bit of schadenfreude from me. He could have at least taken a page from his nemesis Lucas, and played it cool for a good decade.

Turnabout is fair play, Simon.

 

Nothing of the sort has been established. The point is, we don't know. You keep making absurd and baseless claims about what some giant portion of the population supposedly either does or does not understand. What are these desperate imaginings intended to achieve?

Another all-or-nothing scheme? Yawn. I must have missed the meeting...

Except we don't have any support for such a 25% figure; it's just another product of imagination. But nice backpedaling - what was originally alleged to be a statistically insignificant figure has now ballooned to possibly being 75% of the populace, and anything less than 100% is now unacceptable!

Now it's a "fact"? As nothing more than a projection of your own confusion upon millions of other people, in what way does this particular fantasy qualify as a "fact"?