Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

Bryancd said:
Poor analogy as this film has been out if theaters for a few months and it is still being widely discussed here and many other places online, this latest dust up case in point. I would consider that very relevant. But keep on trolling, it's what you are best at.
Click to expand...

You call people who disagree with you talentless hacks and won't even bother to look up how much money the last two Star Trek movies have made. You may call me a troll all you like, but your credibility in knowing troll behavior and what makes for a good analogy is a joke.

And in the midst of the Marvel movies with a new live-action series taking place in the Disney/marvel movie universe, the eventual return of Star Wars which plans to have a Star Wars related movie released every year instead of every four years including a new Star Wars series, I think it's going to take a lot more than merely "discussing" the last movie to keep Star Trek relevant. That's why the restoring of TNG in High Definition (And hopefully DS9 and VOY) is a more critical step at keeping Star Trek relevant because not only are we bringing great Star Trek up to today's technical standards, we don't have to wait three to four years for it to come out. The amount of content of TNG is far more rich and rewarding as a "Star Trek" experience than a mere summer block buster movie that Trek09 and STID was.

And "The Best of Both Worlds" is still the best Star Trek thing I saw in theaters this year.
 
Solo4114 said:
Now, you want to talk about how Cumberbatch's portrayal had other deficiencies (or how the writing didn't really do much to translate Khan's personality over from the old stuff to the new), ok, go for it. Your point about Montalban's passion, for example, and how Cumberbatch's more subdued portrayal was really lacking in that respect. It's been a bit since I saw Space Seed, but I don't recall Khan being a benevolent guy who just wanted to be left alone -- I thought he was supposed to be a conqueror who wanted to dominate the globe along with his other supermen buddies. But whatever. That's not really the point here, unless your point is far more wide ranging than the simple issue of casting that it seemed to start off as.
Click to expand...

Man I hope you're not mixing up my comments with Jeyl's? I would need therapy. :lol
 
Mola Rob said:
Man I hope you're not mixing up my comments with Jeyl's? I would need therapy. :lol
Click to expand...

We have group sessions on alternate Thursdays in the green room. Bring prop replicas as it is nice to have something to fiddle with while other people drone on about how all the conspiracy theories are really about them being victimized. Do you prefer coffee or tea?
 
Mola Rob said:
Man I hope you're not mixing up my comments with Jeyl's? I would need therapy. :lol
Click to expand...

No, he'd mentioned how Khan was passionate and a dreamer who only defended himself rather than the ruthless psycho Cumberbatch played. I think saying "Where was any of that in Cumberbatch's performance or in the writing?" is fair to reference if you want to criticize the performance or the writing. It's the "And WTF is up with him being a white Brit when he's supposed to be a Sikh Indian warrior?!" is the nitpicking. His passion is a legitimate difference in portrayals (although who knows what additional comic book backstory there is to explain that away...), but the character's ethnicity is less a core part of who he is and more just provides an angle for a plot point in Space Seed. It's no different from complaining that they didn't include Joachim (sorry for earlier spelling mistakes on that). Joachim isn't critical to his character. His ethnicity isn't critical to his character. Exposing his chest isn't critical to his character (although demonstrating physical prowess kinda is if you want to sell the whole "genetically engineered superman" angle). Having a white Brit play him isn't really a big deal, therefore, any more than not giving that white Brit a flaxen-haired sidekick who dies just before the end is.

Again, though, I think a simple name change would've worked better. "His real name is James Atheling. In the mid 1990s, he was one of the leaders of the Augment revolt that launched the Eugenics Wars. Along with other similar conquerors like Khan Noonien Singh, he and a handful of other genetically engineered supermen attempted to forcibly mold humanity into something greater than it had been." The scene with old Spock could have either been dropped or included and simply had them asking if he'd ever encountered people like this before, to which Spock would reply that yes, they'd found a different figure in his timeline who had nearly destroyed them all and was EXTREMELY dangerous. It would therefore be logical to assume that this new character would have similar motivations and should be approached with extreme caution. Bim bam boom, you're out of the "But why did they/didn't they keep this/that aspect?" trap, while still retaining some sense of connection with the original material. He'd be a "Khan-like" character instead of actually KHAAAAAAN.
 
greatwazoo42 said:
We have group sessions on alternate Thursdays in the green room. Bring prop replicas as it is nice to have something to fiddle with while other people drone on about how all the conspiracy theories are really about them being victimized. Do you prefer coffee or tea?
Click to expand...

No beer?
 
:lol

Guys, ignore button. Trolls like to be fed so don't feed him. I swear my life is so much more peaceful now because of it. ;)
 
Solo4114 said:
No, he'd mentioned how Khan was passionate and a dreamer who only defended himself rather than the ruthless psycho Cumberbatch played. I think saying "Where was any of that in Cumberbatch's performance or in the writing?" is fair to reference if you want to criticize the performance or the writing. It's the "And WTF is up with him being a white Brit when he's supposed to be a Sikh Indian warrior?!" is the nitpicking. His passion is a legitimate difference in portrayals (although who knows what additional comic book backstory there is to explain that away...), but the character's ethnicity is less a core part of who he is and more just provides an angle for a plot point in Space Seed. It's no different from complaining that they didn't include Joachim (sorry for earlier spelling mistakes on that). Joachim isn't critical to his character. His ethnicity isn't critical to his character. Exposing his chest isn't critical to his character (although demonstrating physical prowess kinda is if you want to sell the whole "genetically engineered superman" angle). Having a white Brit play him isn't really a big deal, therefore, any more than not giving that white Brit a flaxen-haired sidekick who dies just before the end is.

Again, though, I think a simple name change would've worked better. "His real name is James Atheling. In the mid 1990s, he was one of the leaders of the Augment revolt that launched the Eugenics Wars. Along with other similar conquerors like Khan Noonien Singh, he and a handful of other genetically engineered supermen attempted to forcibly mold humanity into something greater than it had been." The scene with old Spock could have either been dropped or included and simply had them asking if he'd ever encountered people like this before, to which Spock would reply that yes, they'd found a different figure in his timeline who had nearly destroyed them all and was EXTREMELY dangerous. It would therefore be logical to assume that this new character would have similar motivations and should be approached with extreme caution. Bim bam boom, you're out of the "But why did they/didn't they keep this/that aspect?" trap, while still retaining some sense of connection with the original material. He'd be a "Khan-like" character instead of actually KHAAAAAAN.
Click to expand...

Man I missed (or blocked out) a few posts. That's what you get from lack of sleep. :lol

greatwazoo42 said:
We stopped serving during the meetings as too many people started crying into it after the first JJ Trek movie came out. We go out for beer after now.
Click to expand...

Hell let's just skip the meeting!

Apollo said:
Don't worry, got ya covered!

Also have a little Saurian Brandy and some Romulan Ale with me too! :D
Click to expand...

Isn't that illegal?

I'll take some anyway...
 
Solo4114 said:
The scene with old Spock could have either been dropped or included and simply had them asking if he'd ever encountered people like this before, to which Spock would reply that yes, they'd found a different figure in his timeline who had nearly destroyed them all and was EXTREMELY dangerous.
Click to expand...

I think it would have been better advice if Spock Prime told NuSpock "Don't do anything that would make him want to incite vengeance!". He's got the Mongo thing going on. Sending 72 torpedoes believing his crew are in them and blowing them up will only make Khan mad.
 
Jeyl said:
Actually, it's not a more apt comparison because Space Seed was not about a Khan seeking vengeance. In Space Seed, the Enterprise crew were the ones to discover and awake Khan. In STID, they were not. In TWOK, Khan explains through exposition how he and his crew were found by the Enterprise, just as Khan explains through exposition how he and his crew were found by Admiral Marcus. TWOK's Khan was on a quest of vengeance. STID's Khan was on a quest of vengeance. TWOK's Khan was a crazed madman who killed mercilessly. STID's Khan was a crazed madman who killed mercilessly. Space Seed's Khan was NOT.

There's more TWOK in STID than there is Space Seed.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Also, should be noted, I was clearly making an argument based on character motivations, not narrative events. So your "rebuttal" here is really apples to oranges. Oh, he explains through exposition in both movies? Whoopdee-friggen-doo Jeyl, most movies explain through exposition, that doesn't make all movies the same.

Vengeance | Define Vengeance at Dictionary.com
vengeance
  Use Vengeance in a sentence
venge·ance
[ven-juhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge: But have you the right to vengeance?
Click to expand...
Khan's motivation in STID is not "vengeance" against Kirk. Kirk didn't wrong Khan. But Khan does manipulate Kirk to get what he wants (exactly like he tried to do in Space Seed).

In TWOK, Khan's motivation is being marooned on the planet by Kirk, which caused the death of his wife and members of his crew. For this, he seeks vengeance.

In STID, Khan is motivated to save his crew. He says as much to Kirk "is there anything you would not do for your family?" This is reinforced within the narrative by the subplot between the Section 31 guy who blows himself up to save his daughter. That is not an act of vengeance, it's an act of desperation motivated by the profound love of a father.

It's Marcus who is the motivation for Khan, NOT Kirk. Marcus wanted to kill his crew by using the torpedoes. Therefore it's Marcus who becomes Khan's target once he realizes he's been had on Qonos. Khan uses Kirk to get to Marcus. Attacking the Enterprise once he "received" what he thought was his crew is tying up loose ends, not an act of vengeance. The crew of the Enterprise didn't wrong Khan, it was Marcus. He simply can't have the Enterprise around to stop him...and then the torpedoes blow.

If you want to make a case based on superficial similarities like "they both killed people!" well then you might as well go ahead and argue that all movie villains are the same. Khan = Blofeld! They're both crazed madmen who killed mercilessly! Khan = Count Dooku they both have accents! Khan = The Joker, they both let themselves get arrested!

No, it's the characters key motivations and how they interact with the other characters in the narrative that defines the sameness or difference between two stories.
 
jlee562 said:
Actually, no. Also, should be noted, I was clearly making an argument based on character motivations, not narrative events. So your "rebuttal" here is really apples to oranges. Oh, he explains through exposition in both movies? Whoopdee-friggen-doo Jeyl, most movies explain through exposition, that doesn't make all movies the same.

Vengeance | Define Vengeance at Dictionary.com

Khan's motivation in STID is not "vengeance" against Kirk. Kirk didn't wrong Khan. But Khan does manipulate Kirk to get what he wants (exactly like he tried to do in Space Seed).

In TWOK, Khan's motivation is being marooned on the planet by Kirk, which caused the death of his wife and members of his crew. For this, he seeks vengeance.

In STID, Khan is motivated to save his crew. He says as much to Kirk "is there anything you would not do for your family?" This is reinforced within the narrative by the subplot between the Section 31 guy who blows himself up to save his daughter. That is not an act of vengeance, it's an act of desperation motivated by the profound love of a father.

It's Marcus who is the motivation for Khan, NOT Kirk. Marcus wanted to kill his crew by using the torpedoes. Therefore it's Marcus who becomes Khan's target once he realizes he's been had on Qonos. Khan uses Kirk to get to Marcus. Attacking the Enterprise once he "received" what he thought was his crew is tying up loose ends, not an act of vengeance. The crew of the Enterprise didn't wrong Khan, it was Marcus. He simply can't have the Enterprise around to stop him...and then the torpedoes blow.

If you want to make a case based on superficial similarities like "they both killed people!" well then you might as well go ahead and argue that all movie villains are the same. Khan = Blofeld! They're both crazed madmen who killed mercilessly! Khan = Count Dooku they both have accents! Khan = The Joker, they both let themselves get arrested!

No, it's the characters key motivations and how they interact with the other characters in the narrative that defines the sameness or difference between two stories.
Click to expand...

Another gem of a post today...
 
jlee562 said:
Whoopdee-friggen-doo Jeyl, most movies explain through exposition, that doesn't make all movies the same.
Click to expand...

Never said they were the same. Just said that when it comes to STID, there's more "The Wrath of Khan" than there is "Space Seed".
 
Oh, is it time for .gifs? Please tell me it's time for .gifs!

thumbsup.gif


:lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

turner3d
Trek TOS Communicator: Animated Moiré Plans on the Cheap
Replies
10
Views
1,076
Trooper_trent
Trooper_trent
asalaw
Confessions of a Star Trek Prop Nerd
Replies
9
Views
1,789
Ronldheld
Ronldheld
DOGFOX2109
Interest Return of The Jedi Darth Vader Production Made Lineage Helmet "JBR"
10 11 12
Replies
234
Views
30,420
DOGFOX2109
DOGFOX2109
eethan
Limited Run Star Wars - Jedi training remote SFX aluminium box base
9 10 11
Replies
210
Views
18,868
eethan
eethan
DaveP
Interest DaveP's V2 and V3 run - 2024
9 10 11
Replies
217
Views
44,031
PadawanLoLo
PadawanLoLo
Back
Top