Ego won't allow it, I think they think they are some kind of unique talent when they are using other people's creations the entire time.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Ego won't allow it, I think they think they are some kind of unique talent when they are using other people's creations the entire time.
I think not telling us he was Khan was a very minor mistake compared to the much larger mistake of actually having Khan in the movie at all.
which is, itself dwarfed by the planet sized mistakes of having Kirk go from cadet to captain, back to cadet, to a meeting of the joint chiefs, back to captain, or interplanetary transport, or super blood, or changing the genetically enhanced from "they are good at stuff' to "They have actual super powers", or to change Khan to a psycho, instead of a somewhat villainous, yet kind of understandable guy with a big ego that really only became a maniacal super villain much later because of what Kirk did to him.
In the end I feel like the decision to leak or not leak a characters name probably only had a very minor effect on the outcome.
which is, itself dwarfed by the planet sized mistakes of having Kirk go from cadet to captain, back to cadet, to a meeting of the joint chiefs, back to captain, or interplanetary transport, or super blood, or changing the genetically enhanced from "they are good at stuff' to "They have actual super powers", or to change Khan to a psycho, instead of a somewhat villainous, yet kind of understandable guy with a big ego that really only became a maniacal super villain much later because of what Kirk did to him.
In the end I feel like the decision to leak or not leak a characters name probably only had a very minor effect on the outcome.
Solo4114
Master Member
I heard in the original draft, he was called Bob Saget.
Sorry for the necro-post, but I never saw this picture and I have two quick questions.
1) Is it necessary to see Into Darkness before seeing Beyond, or does Beyond stand alone? I'd like to see Beyond in the theater, and ideally without renting ID first. But if it's imperative, or even helpful to have seen ID, then I guess I will.
2) Is ID any good? I realize that's a subjective question to some degree, but maybe just tell me how the film was generally received by audiences and critics during its theatrical run. I can't recall whether the buzz was good or bad. PLEASE, when answering this question, no spoilers!
Thanks!
The Wook
ps~for context on my tastes, i thought ST09 was okay, but just okay. an enjoyable enough popcorn movie, but i was not enamored with pine, quinto, or really anyone else in the cast (except nimoy, of course). the movie certainly didn't feel like star trek to me.
1) Is it necessary to see Into Darkness before seeing Beyond, or does Beyond stand alone? I'd like to see Beyond in the theater, and ideally without renting ID first. But if it's imperative, or even helpful to have seen ID, then I guess I will.
2) Is ID any good? I realize that's a subjective question to some degree, but maybe just tell me how the film was generally received by audiences and critics during its theatrical run. I can't recall whether the buzz was good or bad. PLEASE, when answering this question, no spoilers!
Thanks!
The Wook
ps~for context on my tastes, i thought ST09 was okay, but just okay. an enjoyable enough popcorn movie, but i was not enamored with pine, quinto, or really anyone else in the cast (except nimoy, of course). the movie certainly didn't feel like star trek to me.
astroboy
Master Member
Just avoid into darkness. It's no better than bayformers 2
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
SmilingOtter
Master Member
1) Is it necessary to see Into Darkness?
No.
2) Is ID any good?
No.
No.
2) Is ID any good?
No.
I saw it and didn't like it... forgot about it almost instantly...
You really can see the new one without it... nothing really continues on from Into Darkness... in fact I'm pretty sure if ID never happened, this movie would still be exactly the same.
firesprite
Master Member
The other day, I tried to explain why I dislike Into Darkness' portrayal of the Khan character. I finally said that way ID handled adapting Wrath of Khan's story was like taking a cherry 1967 Mustang and stripping it for parts to put into a Pinto.
Just avoid it.
Just avoid it.
firesprite
Master Member
Riceball
Master Member
The big problem, for me, with ID is that it screws with the established timeline too much. Given that Khan would have taken off before the split in the timeline he should have looked just like Ricardo Montalban and probably should have still aboard the Botany Bay and not working with Starfleet.
glunark
Sr Member
I like to think because section 31 used him as an undercover agent, they altered his appearance and voice, then injected something into his blood that would constantly rejuvenate him so that if he tried to have surgery to put him back as he was, he would be back to looking like Sherlock in a few minutes or so.
KrangPrime
Master Member
even a simple explanation like that would show they where having fun with the reboot and trek universe..
they didn't even bother to do that much.
Not unless you read the comics. Though the magic blood was always an effect of Khan's genetic engineering and not an effort to keep him looking the way he was. If Section 31 had the means of curing anything, including death by extreme exposure to radiation, they certainly didn't put it to good use. This stuff brought dead tribbles back to life!
SmilingOtter
Master Member
Well, JJ is notorious for often hiding relevant plot details from the audience. You had to read the tie-in comic to learn that after Nero escaped from Rura Penthe (where he'd been held after being captured by the Klingons,) his ship, (modified with Borg technology before the time-traveling happened) tracked down V'ger, which was able to tell him exactly when/where Spock would turn up.
I felt stupid just WRITING that.
Besides, the Narada went into the black hole before the Jellyfish. So Nero shouldn't even have known that Spock got pulled in afterwards...
I felt stupid just WRITING that.
Besides, the Narada went into the black hole before the Jellyfish. So Nero shouldn't even have known that Spock got pulled in afterwards...
KrangPrime
Master Member
that sounds like bad fan fiction. but somehow i wouldn't doubt it wound up as something official with these jabronis ;o)
They set up a bunch of "rules" with the reboot. Only to break them time and time again. Almost as if they don't give a feces about the franchise.
Riceball
Master Member
That's why I feel that JJ should have just bit the bullet and made it a full reboot instead of semi-reboot based on an alternate timeline or at least push the split way further back in time, but a full reboot would have been better. After all, if the whole reason for a reboot was to avoid decades of past canon then why not just do a full reboot instead of this whole alternate timeline nonsense with plots that involve things that happen before the timeline split? Sure, a hard reboot would have pissed off the die-hard fans but this soft reboot approach still pissed off fans so what did they have to lose aside from the opportunity to put Leonard Nimoy in 2 of the 3 movies?
I'd have to see an edit of Trek09 that removed the dimension-hopping and Old Spock and found a way to rationalize Nero's motivation and ubership... But from Enterprise on, I've been pretty solidly aware that The Powers That Be didn't really know what to do with the Prime Timeline... Really, didn't even understand it. So, basically, treating Enterprise as a hard reboot, and having Trek09 and Into Darkness devolve off of that, would have worked better for me than trying to tie in in, in any way, with the original I.P. beyond taking the names and premise and doing a new spin on it all. I still wouldn't find it anything special. I'd still prefer the original universe and its stories. But at least it'd mean people who didn't get it would quit screwing up the "real" Trek.
--Jonah
Similar threads
