MovieChat Forums > Alerra > Replies
Alerra's Replies
It was the name the Masters gave him. His explanation to Dany is that it was a name given to him to make him feel worthless -- that he was no better than an animal who crawled around in the dirt all day. Grey Worm then keeps it as his name because it was the name he had on the day Dany freed him and is therefore good luck.
>this series is absolutely a product of its time, and a fairly progressive product for its time<
This is a fair point. In 1966, a woman couldn't even ATTEND a military academy, let alone be promoted to bridge officer as head of her department. So for Uhura to have the roll she does was ground breaking (doubly so for her, since she was African-American). The show had, from the get-go, three named regularly appearing female cast members (even though only one was on the bridge). And only one of those three actually fit the definition of Western 1960's beauty (i.e, young, thin, Caucasian blond). The show has always been about pushing social boundaries -- emphasizing what we can do when we put aside our differences and work together.
THAT SAID, calling a female officer "girl", or a male officer "boy" in a professional setting is inappropriate. When the "boy" or "girl" in question is on equal standing with the speaker, that's one thing. When someone in authority says it in regard to a subordinate, it's something else entirely.
When a woman says, "I'm going out tonight with my girls," she sees herself as equal to the "girls" in question. As ONE of the girls. Her use of the word in this scenario is perfectly acceptable.
When a military captain, in reference to a female subordinate, says to another officer, "Make sure to take the girl with you into the field," he is using his position of authority to emphasize the woman's lack of authority or experience to another officer. It suggests that he doesn't respect her enough to recognize her name or rank. This use of "girl" is inappropriate and unprofessional.
And it did bother people at the time, even if it wasn't common. The next time you watch "Space Seed," count how many times Kirk forgets McGivers' name, and her reaction to it.
And I want to add -- my issue with the scene isn't about there being a homosexual character on ST. The franchise has always been about pushing social boundaries, and it's introduced non-cis characters before (Data and Dax come to mind most readily), and this is a particularly sweet scene and sets up Sulu's actions later in the movie.
No, the issue is that it's Sulu. For one, it makes it seem like the only reason Sulu is gay is because TAKEI is. Which is a dumb reason, IMO. To say that a character is homosexual just because the first actor to play him is insulting. And lazy writing. If you aren't good enough to play a character with a different orientation than yours, or write one that whose orientation differs from the actor playing him, you're not very good at your job.
But my other issue (and frankly, the more pressing one) is that PRIME SULU IS NOT GAY. The reason this is an issue is that, even though yes, this is an alternate timeline, Sulu is still Sulu. He's still Hikaru Sulu of San Francisco, a skilled pilot with a love of fencing. What makes Kelvin Sulu different from Prime Sulu is his experiences, the choices he makes, the actions and decisions he takes. Biologically, he's still the same person. And if that's true, that makes one's sexual orientation a choice, rather than something we're born with. And THAT is a problem.
They could just as easily have introduced a brand new character, or reintroduced a previously introduced minor character and established him or her as homosexual. Pegg's argument that said character would just be seen as "that gay character" doesn't fly with me.
Sorry for the late reply, BUT
Mudd's Women: Sulu becomes infatuated with the three ladies Harry brings onto the Enterprise.
Mirror Mirror: Alternate reality Sulu makes several moves on Uhura
Shore Leave: McCoy conjures up two female cabaret dancers for his company. Their presence makes a female crew member jealous, so he passes one of them off to Sulu, who doesn't seem to mind.
Naked Time: While under the influence of the psi 2000 polywater intoxication, Sulu calls Uhura a "fair maiden."
Way to Eden: Sulu expresses interest in one of Sevrin's female followers, who tempts him to join Sevrin's movement.
So there are, at least, five specific instances in Prime Canon where Sulu is depicted as attracted to women. And in at least Naked Time and Way to Eden, his inhibitions have been shown to be significantly lowered, so being "in the closet" is unlikely. I get what you're saying about assumption (and we know what happens when one assumes), but in this particular instance, there's evidence to back it up.
Ok, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "Space Seed" and TWOK were never made, and that STID is completely original in its own right.
Spock is completely out of character. He would have argued against "fixing" the volcano right from the get-go. He would have eventually deferred to Kirk, because he values authority and chain of command, but he would not have risked his life to fix the volcano when things got dicey. Also, he would not have cried at Kirk's death. He didn't cry over Amanda (the most important person in his life), so he definitely would not have cried over Kirk. And he absolutely would not have yelled out in rage at that moment either.
Uhura is the ship's communications officer. The only reason she would have been sent to stop Spock from killing Khan would be because it MIGHT be, that at that specific moment in time, Spock is so full of rage and grief that she MAY have been the only person he might listen to. But that's dicey, and they don't know that for sure. It would have made more sense if they sent down a security detail, since they have to bring back Khan alive and under arrest. Uhura could then accompany them, but no way would Sulu or Bones or whoever was in charge at the time send her down just by herself.
Dei ex machinas are bad writing. They're plot devices used when the writer is too lazy or uncreative to think of a logical way to finish a story plausibly. If your plot resolution depends on suddenly discovering that someone's super strong blood can magically bring a dead person back to life -- when there has been no evidence of this resurrecting property in anything else prior to this -- you're being sloppy.
I'll give you the great cast, though.
Scotty doesn't say the Enterprise IS affected by salt water or volcanic heat. He says that she MIGHT. And there's nothing incorrect regarding his logic. There were many instances in Prime cannon where the crew express concern over intense heat damaging the ship, and there's nothing in the new movies that says what the Enterprise is made from and how the material is different. And it's entirely possible that prolonged exposure to a saline solution might damage her hull as well. She's a space ship. She was made to sail in a vacuum, not an ocean.
Again, Sulu doesn't say that the transporter WILL work better with a line of sight, just that it MIGHT. And given that they were having difficulty picking up Spock's signal at the time, Sulu's line of thinking isn't faulty here. The crew was having trouble finding Spock using the ship's instruments, so Sulu suggests moving closer to see if they could pick up a visual. That actually seems logical to me.
The issue with the Prime Directive has nothing to do with science, let alone physics. But as was mentioned by a previous poster, Prime Kirk did it all the time, so this isn't really a mistake. Assuming that his personality and character are basically the same in the new time line, this would be completely in line with who Kirk is (and you'll notice that he gets chewed out for it later).
There are many, many issues that I have with this movie. But those aren't among them.
"Watch the series again, knowing what you know now, and the clues will be more obvious to you."
GOT is a series, not a movie. The evidence of the clues shouldn't rely on being rewatched with hindsight. If it does, then the clues were poorly placed. Yes, I can rewatch the series. But if I don't know how the series is going to end, then her conversation with Hizdar in the fighting pits -- something people point to as a clue -- speaks more to her compassion (people shouldn't kill each other for sport) than it does her mental instability (I know what's right, and you don't), and it's completely glossed over as a side note in the episode. If that was to be a clue regarding her mental health, there should have been more emphasis placed on it.
Both Sam and Sansa raise legitimate concerns for not submitting to Dany (she's not the rightful heir, she doesn't know Westeros), but suspecting her mental deterioration was not one of them.
There's nothing wrong with Dany ending up mad. But her journey to get there was rushed. The series cut 6 hours of character and plot development from the final two seasons. And it shows.
The problem with TWOK (if one can even call it that), is that it was TOO GOOD. The franchise had this amazing, fantastic movie that was perfect in its own right -- a thrilling battle, a heart-racing climax, a gut-wrenching, bittersweet ending, and a FANTASTIC villain. And the franchise has spent the past 35 years trying to recreate that awesomeness, and -- to a large extent -- falling short. What's really sad about "Into Darkness" is that they didn't even need to do it. The 2009 movie was a good enough tribute to TWOK in its own right and even had an original plot to boot. There was no reason to bring back Khan in STID.
Jon didn't know how she was able to sneak up on him.
Yes he does. In their reunion scene two episodes before, he's praying in the godswood when she comes up to him, and his very first words to her are, "How did you sneak up on me like that?"
(Which I wish they would have included in the "previously on GOT" bit right before Episode 3.)
But you hit the nail on the head. They were supposedly bad. I think the difference between Dany and other villains is that, throughout the first 70+ episodes, Dany never deliberately executes INNOCENTS (like Stannis does, or Tywin intends).
The three people in Qarth had deliberately betrayed her, kidnapped her dragons, and had arranged for several of her entourage to be murdered. The slave trader in Yunkai, was a sexual pervert, and both he and the Dothraki khals threatened and insulted her to her face. The Mereen sailors had been fighting on the sides of the Wise Masters. Viserys threatened to have her raped by 40,000 men, then cut out the baby she was carrying. Mirri Maz Durr performed a spell that resulted in the deaths of her husband and son. The Tarlys had been fighting on the side of Cersei and refused to submit, even after Dany told them she wouldn't take their land and title from them if they knelt. And Varys had betrayed her for Jon.
What we get in the first several seasons is foreshadowing (this is the way Dany is and always will be) rather than character development (this is the way Dany was, but not the way she will end up), and there were better ways to handle it. One thing I wish they had included was the scene in the House of the Undying where Dany is told about her three betrayals. They could have then followed it up with a couple of scenes later where she mulls over them like she does in the books. It would have shown her growing paranoia that becomes more present in the last couple episodes.
We had a budget of about $5000, and we more or less stood by it (I think we ended up paying somewhere around $5500). It was a small-ish wedding. We put a cap at around 50 guests or so. I told my parents that extended family shouldn't expect an invite, although my mom did insist that I invite my four aunts and one uncle (she chipped in for them, so I was ok with that). My feelings were that it wasn't that one day that was important, but everyday that came afterwards, so why splurge?
The ceremony was high Anglican with Holy Eucharist, since that's where we attended. The photographer was a friend of a friend, and basically told me to name my price -- not that we didn't pay her market rate. The florist and caterer were also people we knew. Our reception was pretty low key. Friends of ours offered us the use of their backyard for the evening, and the menu was burgers, baked beans, and potato salad. My dress was somewhere around $500 for the whole thing (dress, petticoat, corset, and alterations). I walked into David's with a price limit and stuck to it. Of course, we paid the organist, and I gave my attendants thank you gifts, and we paid for the rehearsal dinner at a local restaurant. I forget how much the rings were, but I do remember we got a major discount on them because we bought them right before Valentine's Day.
Things I didn't pay for: My bridesmaid's airfare, any of the attendants' dresses, the tuxedo rentals for anyone but Hubs, or people's hotel accommodations. (Although if my sister-in-law had said something, I certainly would have paid for my niece's flower girl dress.)
After we got back from our honeymoon, my parents threw a backyard party for all their friends and extended family who didn't get to come.
So I'm one of the few people out there who genuinely enjoyed Insurrection, so my list is going to be a bit different:
Wrath of Khan
Voyage Home -- "Computer? Helloooo Computer?"
First Contact
Insurrection
Search for Spock -- I would watch it just for Sarek
Generations
Undiscovered Country -- I would have ranked it higher, but I never could get into the Klingon prison scenes.
Final Frontier -- It was a crappy movie, but I love the Yosemite scenes
Motion Picture -- Zzzzzzzz.......
Nemesis
But remember in ST3, Sarek asks Kirk to retrieve Spock's body so his soul could be returned to Vulcan. So I'm going to guess that, at the time of Spock's funeral, the news of his death had not yet reached his family (who, presumably, is on Vulcan, given Kirk's surprise at seeing Sarek on Earth in ST3, and Amanda's presence on Vulcan in ST4). Because if it HAD, I'm going to guess that Sarek would have immediately demanded that it be sent home.
Also, fwiw, the books aren't actually canon. So we can't actually look at them for guidance.
Which is why I'm not a huge fan of this particular film. There was SO MUCH in the 2009 movie that was a callback to TWOK:
The parasites used on Pike
Prime Spock introducing himself to Kirk in the cave ("I have been, and always will be, your friend").
Nero yelling "SPOCK!!!!!"
Spock saying, "I'm aware of my responsibilities" (Saavik says it to Sulu in the simulator).
The Kobayashi Maru.
Spock as a Starfleet instructor.
The windows of the Enterprise spelling out "Khan" in Morse code at the end.
There was enough there to make the point that the first movie was the tribute to Khan that they didn't need to tell his story again this time around. I don't have a problem with BC's portrayal of Khan (he's not Ricardo Montalban, but that's not his fault), but the the movie would have been better if they had simply told a different story all together.
You answered your own question.
"If...the timeline irrevocably changed then Picard and the Enterprise may never exist."
MAY never exist. Not DEFINITELY DIDN'T
We don't know how the timeline being changed in the 23rd century has affected the 24th yet. Picard and the Enterprise-D might exist. Or they might not. There are definitely things going on in the movie that don't make sense (like how the Enterprise was able to warp away from the newly formed black hole when they had just jettisoned their warp drive). But the postulation that the alternate timeline will cause Picard not to exist is not one of them. It COULD cause him not to exist. But while this may be brought up in future movies (I've not seen the other two yet, so I can't speak to them), there's nothing in this particular one that suggests that.
PRIME Vulcan was still intact. But Nimoy's Spock was in the alternate timeline, and he just watched Vulcan be destroyed. More to the point, he's still trying to come to terms with the fact that he went back in time 100 years, and it's unclear if he knows how to get back to his own time (or if it's even possible).
It doesn't matter if, intellectually, you know that your home is still there if you can't ever return to it.
I can believe that. I've always thought that the Stark words (along with "The North remembers" and "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell") originally had something to do with the rise of the Night King and the White Walkers, but over the millennia, the original meaning was lost. Because when you start to think about them, on their own, the phrases don't really make sense. Winter always comes eventually, so why would it be a family motto? What does the fact that it is coming actually mean to the Starks?
Lyanna Mormont had her mother's last name. So since precedent has been set, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for Sansa's children -- if she has any -- to have the last name Stark.
Also, we don't necessarily know that Arya won't ever have children. At the time the series ends, she doesn't seem interested in them, but she's only 18 by the end of the series. There's plenty of time for her to change her mind -- IF she so chooses.
Resurrecting this thread...
When Jamie knights Brienne.
And when Brienne completes Jamie's wikipedia page.
>the north is a harsh place to live ... for many hundreds of years the wildings have been trying to get south of the wall, and why it does not make sense they would give up the land they received in the north.
But it was still their HOME. I kinda view it similar to the relationships between Scotland and England, back when the two were separate countries. The Scots didn't cross over the border to set up shop and live; they crossed because raiding and pillaging the English was part of their way of life. England had the more moderate climate and might be easier to farm, but Scotland was still their home and always would be. It's the same here (at least the way I view it). The Gift might be better land, the climate might be more hospitable, and the Northerners might be wealthier, but the land north of the Wall was their home. So when all the threats from the Army of the Dead are eliminated, it makes complete sense to me that they would want to return.
Also, I read somewhere a theory that defeating the Others would allow the seasons to go back to normal. This would make absolutely no sense from a scientific perspective, but it's a cool idea. When Bran witnesses the creation of the Night King, it's in an area that's green and covered in grass, and the Night King does not appear to be physically uncomfortable, despite having no shirt on. That location is well north of the Wall, so it should have been covered in snow. And as everyone leaves Castle Black in the finale, we see a flower starting to grow. So maybe creating the Night King and his army was what threw the seasons all out of wack, and defeating them brought them back into balance again.