OK, cool. But that doesn't address ethnicity. That addresses point of origin, which, sure, explains how a genetically engineered Indian guy, Black guy, Hispanic guy or European guy has an Indian name.
Maybe the geneering facility was in Northern India and the personnel manning it were local, but the genetic material wasn't. All the "supermen", whatever the ethnic origin of their DNA, might have Sikh names, given them by the personnel or simply to identify which facility they came from... or because they were geneered as soldiers and the Sikhs are a military cast from that area. There are a lot of possibilities.
So, I don't pay much attention to Netflix, but apparently, TOS is available there, so I just re-watched Space Seed for the first time in at least a decade or two.
My hypothetical examples of Khan's origin are undermined. Khan was not genetically engineered or vat-grown. He was the product of selective breeding, and was identified by the ship's historian as North Indian/Sikh, whereas others in hibernation were identified as other ethnicities.
So, there's that.
I would still submit that, since Montalban wasn't Indian, the cast of Cumberbatch in the role isn't a big deal, but ultimately, I really don't care anymore.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Have you ever seen the TNG episode "Paralells"?
Pretty much states as cannon that the universe is CONSTANTLY fracturing off into alternate time lines. That's why I never understood why the alternate timeline thing in the first Abrams Trek ruffled so many feathers. It was the 97th time they used the plot device, so no biggy, IMHO.
I called it 'Crisis of Infinite Worfs"
If they ever go through and 'remaster' TNG like they did TOS, that is one episode I want to see them go hog wild with models on. Infinite Alternate Enterprises. Bonus if we can identify the ISS Enterprise-D :-)
This was very much the MASS EFFECT 3 of movies, mainly in that how quite a lot of the film was good, or even great, with some excellent set-pieces, good character development and some great ideas, but all of that falls by the wayside because the last 15 minutes or so are so ludicrously awful.
Setting aside the silliness of the ending, INTO DARKNESS's biggest problem is that it doesn't earn that ending. The original STAR TREK movies had a two-movie arc featuring a moment of tremendous sacrifice, then a hard slog to reverse it through an implausible (but well-established) plot device. This was successful, but at a very high cost: the death of Kirk's son, the loss of his ship and the end of his career (which he eventually got back, though only after another full movie of effort).
INTO DARKNESS, on the other hand, goes bonkers like a hyperactive puppy on speed, careening through the sacrifice and reversal process in a matter of minutes, but not really having any kind of pay-off or cost for it. There's no real consequence, not even as a result of the (presumably) massive-casualties-inducing final set-piece, as no-one really mentions it and the final scene has everyone laughing and cheering as they high-five into more adventures. There's no real weight to the resolution, just a desire to provide flashy visuals for the popcorn-munchers.
If the entire film was drek from start to finish, this would be easier to stomach. Instead, the rest of the movie had some good characterisation (even of minor crew; Chekov and Sulu didn't have a lot to do, but their few scenes in the sun were memorable and interesting), some effective moments of tension and some great action beats. It's just that the ending feels cheap and lazy, riffing far too much off a far superior older film and betraying its own status as a reboot film set in a new continuity. Very odd, and very disappointing.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This news upsets me because Benedict Cumberbatch sounds like either (a) the most half-assed name that a DM could come up with for his John Constantine rip-off character or (b) an extraneous character from the Princess Bride.
In any case, the existence of an actor with this name is causing grave damage to my sanity because it makes me question reality. Benedict Cumberbatch is the kind of thing my brain would spew out as I enjoy the last fleeting moments of a Matrix-style dreamworld in the coma that precedes sweet, sweet death. I imagine that the televsion is on in my hospital room, tuned to PBS, where a show featuring a giant tea-drinking muppet named Benedict Cumberbatch is singing about sharing or some other b$+!!*~*.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, the existence of an actor with this name is causing grave damage to my sanity because it makes me question reality.
His full name is Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch, and his middle names are the first and middle name of his father. His parents are rich British people. According to the registry at the Ministry of Silly Names, his name is recorded as only "slightly silly." Does that help any? (If it completes your slide into insanity, I'll take that as a yes.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Check out BBC's Sherlock. He's pretty awesome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything JJ Abrams touches always ends poorly. He can't even end stories as good as Michael Crichton, and believe me that is a pretty low bar to clear (... uh how about a volcano blows up and everyone jumps on a hot air balloon).
Anything JJ Abrams touches always ends poorly. He can't even end stories as good as Michael Crichton, and believe me that is a pretty low bar to clear (... uh how about a volcano blows up and everyone jumps on a hot air balloon).
Gah! I'm agreeing with pres man. What is the world coming to??
Saw it last week. Great movie, better and more emotional than Iron Man 3.
Anything JJ Abrams touches always ends poorly. He can't even end stories as good as Michael Crichton, and believe me that is a pretty low bar to clear (... uh how about a volcano blows up and everyone jumps on a hot air balloon).
it pains me to disagree with you.
Anything JJ Abrams touches always ends poorly. He can't even end stories as good as Michael Crichton, and believe me that is a pretty low bar to clear (... uh how about a volcano blows up and everyone jumps on a hot air balloon).it pains me to disagree with you.
Can you elaborate?
Anything JJ Abrams touches always ends poorly. He can't even end stories as good as Michael Crichton, and believe me that is a pretty low bar to clear (... uh how about a volcano blows up and everyone jumps on a hot air balloon).
I agree with you, JJ Abrams is really good at thinking up the beginnings of stories, but has a weakness of ending them well.
Other than a giant, glaring error in physics though, the ending of Into Darkness is fine.
More generally, I found Into Darkness to be much better than the previous one. It kept a large number of nods to the original, which increased in the final act of the movie, but they didn't feel as forced as they did in the first movie.
Cumberbatch is excellent as always IMO. It felt like Pine and Quinto settled into their roles a little better with this one, particularly Quinto.
|
I enjoyed Star Trek a lot as a movie, it was very emotional, fun and sexy.
It was ALSO dumb, unoriginal and completely predictable.
JJ Abrams is convinced that surprises are what make good movies. I think he might be right, but he is BAD AT MAKING SURPRISES. The twist that Cumberbatch is Khan was the worst kept secret in the world.
Also the movie just goes to show the original timeline crew was bad at decision making.
Also there was that one scene where the new female science-officer character strips to her undies for no reason, because apparently the perfect egalitarian future is STILL super sexist. Great.
JJ Abrams understands what makes a good action movie, but doesn't understand what makes a good science fiction movie.
Can you elaborate?Anything JJ Abrams touches always ends poorly. He can't even end stories as good as Michael Crichton, and believe me that is a pretty low bar to clear (... uh how about a volcano blows up and everyone jumps on a hot air balloon).it pains me to disagree with you.
there's not much to elucidate upon. With the exception of lost (which I more blame on the strike that occurred at the time period), I dont have a problem with Abrams or his endings. Just a matter of taste I guess.
|
|
Seen it, enjoyed it, especially some small role reversal and especially two things:
And when young Spock mentioned Khan's name to Spock prime. The look on the latter's face was a priceless ooooohh s**t.
That said, i kinda didn't like that they spent too little time on Khan, his motives and fleshing him out.
Also there was that one scene where the new female science-officer character strips to her undies for no reason, because apparently the perfect egalitarian future is STILL super sexist. Great.
Well, she was changing clothes, which involves stripping down. But I agree that it was a hamfisted way of building some ( very minor ) sexual tension between her and Kirk. The two of them were together in the original series, she was the father of his son ( who subsequently was killed in the third movie ).
The two of them were together in the original series, ( who subsequently was killed in the third movie ).
Wait, wait, wait. How does that work?!
It's sci-fi, there are ways.
Oh, oh, oh, oh. I get it now... like that one Voyager episode where that one guy with that tattoos was a father without his permission, but not because he had sex, but because some crazy stalker lady ex-girlfriend stole a bit of his genetic code and had herself "inseminated" with his clone/son.
So, of course, he talked about with the spirit of his long-dead grandfather who was tied to the land but on the ship galaxies away because reasons.
Ooh! Ooh! Or that time female captain lady almost was the mother of Q's son, but in the end decided not to be, so he got another Q, and the captain lady was then super disappointed when "Q-sex" she was watching ended up just being a glowing finger-touch.
Or, or that one time the captain lady and the tattoo guy ended up turned into lizards on a swamp planet until they had sex and she laid eggs and then they got better and left with little to no memories of what, exactly, happened and decided the eggs should just live on their own, if they can.
... oh, geez, that show was messed up.
The two of them were together in the original series, ( who subsequently was killed in the third movie ).
Wait, wait, wait. How does that work?!
Uh, how it works irl. Boy (James T. Kirk) meets Girl (Carol Markus). Boy gets with Girl. Baby comes down the pike. In the meantime Boy and Girl break up. Girl does not tell Boy about baby, less baby run off to Starfleet with Boy. Baby get's dead. Boy gets really, really mad after just finding baby. Simple really.
So. Joke explaining time! :D ... :/
Uh, how it works irl. Boy (James T. Kirk) meets Girl (Carol Markus). Boy gets with Girl. Baby comes down the pike. In the meantime Boy and Girl break up. Girl does not tell Boy about baby, less baby run off to Starfleet with Boy. Baby get's dead. Boy gets really, really mad after just finding baby. Simple really.
That's not what was described up above.
R, I'm actually fully aware of the supposed "actual history" and what "really happened" in Star Trek lore. You missed the joke. Magnus' words indicated a reverse in gender physical roles - which, under current definition, is inherently impossible.
"she was the father" should have been, "she was the mother" instead.
If "she" (i.e. Carol, the science officer in question) was the "father" that indicates that Kirk was the mother, i.e. that James Kirk gave birth to the son after she (Carol, identified as "the father") placed her genetic material inside of James Kirk.
If you followed what he actually said in this case, your post would have read:
Uh, how it works irl. Boy (James T. Kirk) meets Girl (Carol Markus). Boy gets with Girl. Baby comes down the pike. In the meantime Boy and Girl break up. Girl does not tell Boy about baby (despite the fact that boy gave birth to the baby), less baby run off to Starfleet with Boy. Baby get's dead. Boy gets really, really mad after just finding baby. Simple really.
That bold part is what doesn't happen in real life because, even with current surgical and biological alteration tech, that's not possible.
The mistake itself is easy enough to make, because it's a simple incorrect (but related) word choice. Being dyslexic, I'm prone to doing the same kinds of things and often do so, though I try to remove them through near-constant editing and revision of my posts. I'm not saying Magnus is dumb or making fun of him in a mean spirited way, just pointing out a funny twist of words that creates a meaning that is clearly not what he intended.
Explaining it takes away a great deal of humor in a joke, but I'm trying to avoid derailing what could be a long series of back-and-forths by cleanly and fully explaining why the amusing incorrect word choice was amusing.
We good? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. His gender transposition slipped right by me. I wondered what was so astounding about it and now I know. Going where no man went before, indeed :D
Yep. His gender transposition slipped right by me. I wondered what was so astounding about it and now I know. Going where no man went before, indeed :D
Heh. Wow. I totally missed that opportunity! Nice!
By the way it was Paris and Janeway that became lizards. And the child was not Chakotay after all but really was the Kazon leader's.
By the way it was Paris and Janeway that became lizards. And the child was not Chakotay after all but really was the Kazon leader's.
Huh, I really thought it was Chakotay who became a lizard. And, honestly, it's been so long, I'd forgotten most of the other episode with Chakotay's son not being his son, although now that you say that, it sounds really familiar.
Regardless, those are really weird themes to bring up. The whole Chakotay being dad or not against his will without having done anything and thus needing to talk to his spirit ancestor is especially odd when the ship is in a different galaxy.
I'll be the first to admit, though, my knowledge of said shows is not encyclopedic.
Although the expressions Janeway got before she thought she was going to witness Q-sex and immediately thereafter were hilarious. () :)
I'm still sad I missed the "where no man has gone before" opportunity. That was awesome. :)
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
I just want to relate a story:
I was browsing the forums this morning, scrolling through to check and see if Jason Bulhman answered a question I was interested in. I see this thread title.
I am going to see this movie tomorrrow.
Thank you for ruining what would have been a surprise to me and lessening a moment of enjoyment in a movie I am excited to enjoy for whatever reason seemed appropriate.
Thank you to the Paizo moderators for allowing a huge spoiler for a summer movie to be in a thread title for as long as this has.
:(
"Oh no, a minor spoiler that was talked about a lot on the internet long before this thread was made, man that guy is a jerk for saying something he presumed we all knew."
No, he's not. At worst, he's thoughtless. This is not the same as being a jerk. He wasn't doing something to harm or irritate others. He did nothing mean or petty.
Good grief, people. It's a 'spoiler' that has been presumed on the internet forever.
People are being more jerkish about piling on the OP for being a jerk than the OP was about making the thread title. I mean yeah, sure, ask the mods to change the title, or something, I guess, but do it respectfully.
A movie spoiler isn't that big a deal in the long run. Relax. As is so oft quoted in this forum, remember "The most important rule: Don't be a jerk."
Also, watch the movie and then note whether or not the spoiler made it a lesser experience. Don't go, "Agh, I presume everything is ruined because I know a plot twist that happens somewhere in the movie."
Anyway, more on topic, let's continue to talk about how Kirk is going where no man has gone before!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
** spoiler omitted **
Anyway, more on topic, let's continue to talk about how Kirk is going where no man has gone before!
Movie spoilers lessen my enjoyment of surprises that are spoiled, which lessens my appreciation of points of a movie. Some people don't care about spoilers, others do.
Basically, it wouldn't have negatively impacted this thread at all to not post that in the thread title, but it did negatively impact my day by scrolling past it. I've been really good about not spoiling anything about this movie, and no, I wasn't aware lots of people speculated that he was Kahn, because I'd been purposefully avoiding discussion of that.
I didn't think I had to collapse the Paizo movie forums so I don't get spoiled by thread titles.
It is considerate to think of other people's preferences on something like this, it's proper forum etiquette practically everywhere I have ever been on the internet. It isn't the worst thing in the world, no, that's hyperbole, but it is -- as I would say -- a "dick move".
"I know a lot of people feel strongly about spoilers, but I am doing this anyway because I don't care."
That's a lot like being a jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see where brookes is coming from. The title of the thread should lack spoilers. However, this is a minor spoiler.
"I know a lot of people feel strongly about spoilers, but I am doing this anyway because I don't care."
That's a lot like being a jerk.
See, that's assigning motive where there is none.
The OP noted that he didn't think that it was actually a "spoiler" later in the thread because he thought it was well known/rampantly speculated by everyone.
You're presuming malice when it was simply ignorance.
Get off that high horse, because that's another way of being just as much a "jerk" as the OP was by presuming knowledge people didn't have.
I understand it's annoying. But people are blowing this way out of proportion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't think it's a spoiler if you can find it out just by looking at the cast list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That guy is his dad.
And she is his sister.
And by the way, that guy is the emperor.
Jesus dies.
Spoiler Alert: He gets better!
Yeah, I don't think it's a spoiler if you can find it out just by looking at the cast list.
Just like in the Usual Suspects, but that was still a spoiler.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spoiler Alert: There's a spaceship, and some fighting. Also, maybe a Vulcan or half-Vulcan member of the crew, but I don't want to say too much.
Edit: Also, if you look at the cast list for The Usual Suspects, Kevin Spacey plays "Roger 'Verbal' Kint" so, uh, no spoiler there. Conversely, if you look at the cast list for Into Darkness, it says Benedict Dugglesworth Stipleton Cumberbatch the Third is "KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!"
And Ben Kingsley is listed as playing the Mandarin in the cast list, not "a guy pretending to be the Mandarin," which would've been an actual spoiler.
Edit 2: I poked around IMDB a little more to look at cast lists of movies where a character's identity was a key plot point, and have yet to find one where the cast list includes a spoiler. See also: The Dark Knight Rises.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jesus dies.
And in Titanic? It sinks.
Thanks to formula writing, it's almost impossible to 'spoil' the plot of anything that happens on TV these days. It's all 'minute 42, X happens to Y' with different people playing the part of Y week to week.
I think the last time I was surprised by something on the TV was in Dynasty when a bunch of terrorists burst into a wedding and shot everyone. Many an episode of CSI: Lios na gCearrbhach could be livened up by a bunch of mutant bear-ninja rappelling down through the ceiling and busting up the place with explosive pineapples.
Sadly only David Lynch gets this. :)
Guys, don't be dicks.
It's a spoiler and it shouldn't have been in the thread title. Looking up casting info on IMDB is a level of effort beyond simply browsing a forum. One involves actively looking up details of a movie - the other is simply looking at a gaming site. Drawing the parallel isn't really fair.
Guys, don't be dicks.
It's a spoiler and it shouldn't have been in the thread title. Looking up casting info on IMDB is a level of effort beyond simply browsing a forum. One involves actively looking up details of a movie - the other is simply looking at a gaming site. Drawing the parallel isn't really fair.
Are you asking us not to pester people for doing relatively innocent things, like, say, someone unthinkingly and non-maliciously posting a minor spoiler that doesn't actually impact the plot all that much because he thought everyone already knew?
That's the thing that bothers, Peter. It's a double standard.
Guy One: "Oh, hey, I'm going to start a thread that no one else has! It'll be a fun thing for the forum!"
Guy Two: "YOU JERK YOU GAVE SPOILERS!"
Guy One: "Sorry, I thought everyone knew."
Guys Three through Fifteen: "No you jerk, and we're calling you a jerk."
This has been a pattern throughout the thread.
I note that it could be a mistake, up above. But it's a minor one, at worst. He's not being a jerk, but people are accusing him of doing so, and in so doing being jerks themselves.
Thus the mild (over all) and non-specific joking at the expense of a number of people who have angrily and unfairly decried one person for making a mistake, assigning malice where there is none.
Personally? It was a spoiler for me. I didn't know Khan was going to be in this movie, and I'm surprised. I hadn't gone to IMDB, and had avoided most of the speculation (though another forum I hang around had been discussing the idea).
But I'm not really mad at the guy because, in the end, it doesn't matter. It's an entertaining piece of fiction, but it's not life-altering.
And there's a lot of people piling on a guy for making an honest and minor mistake.
And anyway, a number of people find browsing IMDB less of a hassle than browsing a forum, some friends of mine among them.
I'm not saying that everyone who didn't want spoilers are lousy people. I'm not even saying that the 'spoiler', minor as it is, should be in the title.
What I am saying is that calling a guy a jerk, and continuing to do so after he apologized and clarified he didn't know he was doing something wrong is a jerk move itself.
That and making jokes with a few other internet friends about a funny thing.
Still: I'm more than willing to drop it if people stop calling him a jerk for a minor, non-malicious mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree Tacticsilion. Although by the number of posts annoyed with the title I might have thought it may have been altered by the mods (although they may have better things to do).
But it does bring up when is a spoiler - a spoiler. Does it have to be important to the story? Accessible? Or widely asked?
With Sebastian's spoiler above, is that more or less of a spoiler than the thread title?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
With Sebastian's spoiler above, is that more or less of a spoiler than the thread title?
Hard for me to say without seeing the movie. Maybe someone who has seen the movie can chime in to confirm that the first 30 minutes of Cumberbatch being on screen involve him saying "my name is Keyser Soze, I'm really not Kahn" and then, when confronted, he laughs and says "Sucka! I am Kahn!" In that case, the thread title seems like a spoiler. But, if everyone is saying "holy cow, it's Kahn" when he first shows up, or he kicks down the door and yells "IT'S KAHHHHHHHHN!!!", I have a hard time thinking of the title of this thread as a spoiler.
What can I say, it captured the concept of having a thicker skin about minor spoilers on the internets and nicely mirrored the existing rule.
Spoiler?
It's a movie that makes no sense......