The worst for me is I could really use some Trek I could believe in these days.
So for those of you that can enjoy this so much, I am envious.
The things this film offers isn't what I need from Trek right now, or honestly ever.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
The worst for me is I could really use some Trek I could believe in these days.
So for those of you that can enjoy this so much, I am envious.
The things this film offers isn't what I need from Trek right now, or honestly ever.
In the context of Khan, it kind of does. Khan was an Augment, which meant that his "human parents" were really just a group of genetecists. Granted, a surrogate was probably used to carry the baby to term, but there might have been mechanical "wombs" to do the same thing. There's no way to say one way or the other without canonical proof or Word of God on the subject.
They totally do, unless you're trying to say that a person who adopts Sikhism as a religion automatically and against their will becomes a native of the Punjabi region of India, regardless of the nationality they were born into...
Irrelevant statement of inquiry, but yes, I am a Texan American of Nordic and Scottish descent. Why exactly does that matter?
tgreco
Sr Member
My grudge isn't that they recycled Khan. I knew that was inevitable. If it wasn't Abrams, it would have been somebody else.
My complaint is that they used a great villian, and basically wasted him. So this was it. They redid Khan. Did they make him deeper? More sinister? More charismatic? No. He was a plot device.
You really want to compare what Nolan and Ledger did with the Joker, to what Abrams / Cumberbatch did with Khan?
Nolan made the Joker more terrifying, more psychotic, and weirdly more real. They gave him screen time and depth
Abrams had Khan and did what with him? Made him more British?
Abrams can't do villians with any depth. He had to rely on Cumberbatch's reputation from Sherlock (as he plays a super intelligent character) and Montalban's performance in WOK. Stooping so low as to directly reference it in his movie.
At what point did Khan have any great meaningful dialogue? "What would you do to save your family?"
wow... heady stuff.
Lord Boron
Sr Member
Dumbest...movie....ever.......
That's all I have to say on the subject.
That's all I have to say on the subject.
Yet in this thread it is still running positive reviews by a factor of over 2 to 1. Your welcome to go back and count, I did.
Proper
Well-Known Member
That's because the people who are bashing the movie the loudest made up their minds to do so before the movie was even released. Let's call it the way it is, shall we?
mynameschris
Well-Known Member
I was actually wrong attributing that to Khan anyway, I rechecked and it was how the Klingons were originally described by Gene ****.
If we want to get technical about it, there are not only a large number of Sikhs in Britain (which could explain Cumberbatch,) there are also currently about 8000 Mexican Sikhs, suggesting that at least some of them would have Mexican accents...
Sikhism by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theres something I didnt know, but during the episode McGuivers says he looks like he is from the Indian region.
During Space Seed Khan tries to sound regal and almost British during some scenes...where as looks, well Marcus could have had him surgically altered so no one who reads history could recognis him
Astrokid248
Well-Known Member
Knew there was a reason I liked you.
I do find it very interesting that this is such a "love it or hate it" movie. I'll quote a thing I wrote over at io9:
And that's how I feel about this film too. When it comes right down to it, I have to agree with Jeyl on a majority of his points. This movie isn't a great entry to the Trek canon. I don't think it's horrible, especially compared to A LOT of episodes and about half the films, but it's not great either. And it falls apart under any sort of scrutiny. But you know what else falls apart under scrutiny? Everything surrounding the Jedi in Star Wars. The time travel mechanics of Doctor Who, Looper, and Ocarina of Time. Any aliens or Jaffa speaking English in Stargate. Almost everything I enjoy, when picked apart to this level, is fundamentally crap. That doesn't stop me from enjoying it though. I enjoyed Into Darkness, even if it was just a shoddy TWOK ripoff. And I think I'm gonna go see it again.
This review expresses exactly how I feel about the movie:
Half in the Bag: Star Trek Into Darkness |
Half in the Bag: Star Trek Into Darkness |
firesprite
Master Member
That's because the people who are bashing the movie the loudest made up their minds to do so before the movie was even released. Let's call it the way it is, shall we?
I don't know about that. I WANTED to like this movie. I enjoyed the first one (despite the fact that there were some amazingly stupid things that happened in it such as Scotty being sucked through the water tubes) and was hoping this one would be at least as good.
The Enterprise is not the Yamato. The Yamato was designed to be submerged, and was built underwater to keep its construction secret. Having the Enterprise #1 built on Earth and #2 capable of submerging makes zero sense. Look at the superstructure of the thing. There is NO WAY it would be able to get off the ground the first time, let alone cope with the stresses of emerging from the amount of water that would be needed to conceal it.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate, let's say somehow the materials were strong enough to withstand the pressure of the water. Once it began emerging, it would have to do so VERY slowly, certainly not quickly enough to come to the rescue of Spock in the short time they had. The sheer surface area of that saucer would put such stress on the joins that it would be ripped apart if they tried to surface that quickly. It's rudimentary physics.
As for reusing Khan... that's not the problem I had with that. I think Cumberbatch did a great job with the material he was given. My problem was with the retread of the Spock death scene from WoK. Although I'm pleased that Chris Pine apparently learned a few things between the last movie and this one, I thought it was gratuitous and utterly unnecessary.
Also, what POSSIBLE reason could McCoy have for injecting a DEAD tribble with Khan's blood. What could he possibly have expected to learn from that? If the tribble was just sick, that would have made sense, but the fact that it was dead just made me shake my head.
The violation of the Prime Directive in the start of the movie was a missed opportunity as well. In thinking about the dialogue between Pike and Kirk, I definitely got the impression Pike was more upset that Kirk lied than he violated one of the most sacrosanct tenant of Starfleet's charter; that of non-interference of pre-warp societies. Whether it would have a long-lasting impact on the world's culture or not, the fact remains that they HAVE that rule for a reason. Kirk's reasonings for it ("I can't play by the rules all the time" and that Spock is his friend) aren't good enough. I MIGHT have been able to buy them giving him a slap on the wrist demotion had he simply been smart enough to point out that Spock is one of only a few thousand remaining Vulcans in the universe and therefor the preservation of the life of a member of one of the Federation's founding races justified the violation.
*Sigh*. Anyway, the point is, that with only a little more thought on some of these matters, the script could have been MUCH stronger and eliminated a lot of the issues that had me literally shaking my head and even facepalming at several points during the film.
jlee562
Sr Member
Ok, I'll cop to not being fully informed on Augment history, but nothing on the memory alpha article says that they were entirely created beings independent of any human input. What source am I missing?
Actually though, this specific point is kind of ancillary to my point about Cumberbatch being miscast.
There is a Sikh diaspora yes, but they are ethnically Punjabi. Unlike other major religions, Sikhism is not generally a religion one converts into. Which is of course not to say that it doesn't happen ever, but Sikhism is, by definition, a majority Punjabi religion. But you don't have to take my word for it:
Sikh diaspora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moreover, your analogy above is simply flawed. You're trying to conflate nationality and ethnicity. French and Scottish are Ethnically Western European, they come from essentially the same genetic pool. Western European and South Asian are not. Those are two distinct ethnic groups.
Totally not irrelevant to someone who studies critical race theory.
Let me put it to you this way, would you cast Samuel L. Jackson as Abraham Lincoln? Conversely, would you cast Daniel Day Lewis as Shaft? Ok, actually, Daniel Day Lewis as Shaft would be really hilarious if it happened, but I think the point here is made.
In spite of your incredulity, Sikhism is basically an Indian religion, more to the point, Space Seed describes Khan as Indian (we'll ignore for the second that one of the fundamental tenets of Sikhism is never to cut one's hair, so Khan should really have an epic beard). So yeah, when you take an established character and basically ignore his ethnicity, I think that's problematic.
Which is to say nothing of the larger issue of "whitewashing" in the movie industry at large. This is not a new issue either. Not to minorities anyway. There's a reason why there aren't any new Charlie Chan revivals.
Like I said, if you found the story problematic, so be it. My point does not apply to you. I was addressing those in this thread who feel that recycling Khan - regardless of story - was problematic.
SmilingOtter
Master Member
Neither here nor there, but in the novels about Khan's backstory, he decides that he doesn't have to keep the Sikh tenets because, well, he's Khan.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
What kind of stresses are put on the superstructure when it travels several times the speed of light? Shouldn't it peel the paint off a bit?
Oh yeah, the technobabble structural integrity field prevents the ship from essentially caving in on itself at warp. The Enterprise isn't fragile; I don't think a little water is going to hurt it.
Khan was working for Marcus all along, so it wasn't a question of "hoping" he would survive the attack- Marcus HAD to survive the attack. This also explains why Khan didn't just launch a missile from orbit: it would have taken out the whole building without being "selective."
Remember there is a huge conspiracy going on here conducted by Marcus. Kahn said he attacked Starfleet out of revenge, but Khan can't be trusted. It's very likely that Marcus (certainly more of a military strategist than young Kirk) would also understand that an emergency meeting would bring the heads of Starfleet to this "one room" vulnerable to assault (just as Kirk surmized)...
So Marcus instructs Khan to take out the best Captains of Starfleet in order to have a much more managable fleet under his control. It also explains the reason Marcus was so quick to promote Kirk back to Captain... So he could have Kirk be another of his pawns in his masterplan. Kirk is now full of fire and revenge over the death of Pike, and will do as he is told (keep the mission covert, take on a cargo of "classified" missiles) so long as the ends justify the means of Kirk gaining his revenge. However unbeknownst to Kirk, the Enterprise and its crew were all expendable on this mission.
That is, if you subscribe to a deeper conspiracy than what was shown on screen.
Kevin
Last edited:
Really??? Dumbest movie ever??? EVER???
It's not even the dumbest Trek movie much less dumbest movie ever. Did you see Star Trek V? Now that was bad.
It's not even the dumbest Trek movie much less dumbest movie ever. Did you see Star Trek V? Now that was bad.
Mola Rob
Sr Member
What kind of stresses are put on the superstructure when it travels several times the speed of light? Shouldn't it peel the paint off a bit?
Oh yeah, the technobabble structural integrity field prevents the ship from essentially caving in on itself at warp. The Enterprise isn't fragile; I don't think a little water is going to hurt it.
Khan was working for Marcus all along, so it wasn't a question of "hoping" he would survive the attack- Marcus HAD to survive the attack. This also explains why Khan didn't just launch a missile from orbit: it would have taken out the whole building without being "selective."
Remember there is a huge conspiracy going on here conducted by Marcus. Kahn said he attacked Starfleet out of revenge, but Khan can't be trusted. It's very likely that Marcus (certainly more of a military strategist than young Kirk) would also understand that an emergency meeting would bring the heads of Starfleet to this "one room" vulnerable to assault (just as Kirk surmized)...
So Marcus instructs Khan to take out the best Captains of Starfleet in order to have a much more managable fleet under his control. It also explains the reason Marcus was so quick to promote Kirk back to Captain... So he could have Kirk be another of his pawns in his masterplan. Kirk is now full of fire and revenge over the death of Pike, and will do as he is told (keep the mission covert, take on a cargo of "classified" missiles) so long as the ends justify the means of Kirk gaining his revenge. However unbeknownst to Kirk, the Enterprise and its crew were all expendable on this mission.
That is, if you subscribe to a deeper conspiracy than what was shown on screen.
Kevin
The question of whether or not the Enterprise could survive the water pressure did not bother me it's the fact it was there in the first place. It was an awesome visual moment without a plausible reason for existing. Just like the Carol Marcus strip scene.
I found it funny how Spock points out that trying to assassinate Khan was wrong when he himself pushed Kirk into killing Nero and his crew at the end of the first movie. Nice consistency in the characters.
jlee562
Sr Member
The Enterprise underwater did bother me, because I really don't think that the Enterprise would be structurally sound under atmospheric pressure/gravity. Likewise, it also bothered me to see it being built on Earth (and in Iowa for some reason) in the first film.
For example, the ISS is structurally unsound under atmosphere. There's simply no way that structure could support itself with the forces of gravity.
For example, the ISS is structurally unsound under atmosphere. There's simply no way that structure could support itself with the forces of gravity.
True but the ISS is intentionally built with the lightest materials possible due to the prohibitive cost of lifting them into orbit on conventional chemical rockets and the shuttle system. These starships are designed for much more heady stuff including warp travel, gravitional anomalies, even combat. Dollars to donuts they are made of far tougher stuff.
SmilingOtter
Master Member
I fully accept the "how." I might have accepted the "why" if they'd bothered to offer one.
All canon sources have been exhausted. I'm simply saying that we don't know what Khan's upbringing was. We don't know if he was born to human parents or grown in a vat. Without a canon source of information on the matter, all we have is speculation and non canon sources.
I am aware of that, but your previous post made it seem like Sikhs are only Punjabi Indian. However, I say we drop this line of discussion, as it borders on religion.
Incorrect. Go back and reread what I wrote. I was making a statement that ethnicity and religion are NOT the same thing.
No, because that would make it historically inaccurate. Khan is a fictional character. Abraham Lincoln is not. Apples vs Oranges.
Again, no. The character of Shaft was from a blaxploitation film, featuring an African American hero portrayed by an African American actor. Recasting the role with an actor of a different ethnicity would do a disservice to the character and to the point behind the movie to begin with.
Incorrect. You're making a case based on faulty information. Lieutenant McGivers' assumption that Khan was a Sikh was made based on a look at him while he was still unconscious. General facial characteristics could indicate heritage, but to call him a Sikh was a poor judgement on her part (not to mention a telling statement on her abilities as a historian) given that Khan wore no signs of religious affiliation AND he was clean shaven, something that is implicitly against Sikh beliefs.
That's like saying that Islam is basically an Arab religion or Buddhism is basically an Oriental religion. While their ORIGINS may be there, there origins do not define it.
Addressed above.
Okay, we're on the same page here, so long as you have an issue with BOTH versions of Khan.
Similar threads
