#4507558 - 02/16/20 12:09 AM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
Nimits
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,945
United States of America
|
I agree Abrams (or whoever) did a good job casting the Star Trek reboot; the first act of the first movie (right up until they start treating cadet Kirk like he is ready to promote straight from third-year student to Commander) is quite good . . . if only someone could have done as a good a job writing and directing the story for the other 2 2/3 movies . . .
Last edited by Nimits; 02/16/20 12:11 AM.
|
|
#4507566 - 02/16/20 02:53 AM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: Nimits]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
|
I agree Abrams (or whoever) did a good job casting the Star Trek reboot; the first act of the first movie (right up until they start treating cadet Kirk like he is ready to promote straight from third-year student to Commander) is quite good . . . if only someone could have done as a good a job writing and directing the story for the other 2 2/3 movies . . . Again I have to agree with every word. Casting was very good, in Urbans case great. The entire premise of taking wet behind the ears cadets and giving them a starship in the first JJTrek movie is just preposterous. And in the second he just re-writes one of the most iconic Trek stories of all time.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4507574 - 02/16/20 08:06 AM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,779
EAF331 MadDog
XBL: LanceHawkins
|
XBL: LanceHawkins
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,779
Oslo, Norway
|
And in the second he just re-writes one of the most iconic Trek stories of all time.
And made Khan an opponent whom you could fear. I love ST2, but nothing there really showed why Khan was so fearsome - heck the man behind the Eugenics wars, the most brilliant warlord ever, and he couldn't phantom 3d thinking? Please. Even in the TOS episode there is little to make him stand out.
|
|
#4507588 - 02/16/20 03:23 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
So there's a new Khan, eh? I did some research and some were upset for 'whitewashing' Khan into a plain white dude, while the makers of the movie didn't want to "support demonizing anyone of color." When will it end? It already has in 1982 when the *real* Khan (Ricardo Montalbán) died in battle. What a good movie.
Last edited by MarkG; 02/16/20 08:35 PM. Reason: Khan not Kahn, dammit. :)
The rusty wire that holds the cork that keeps the anger in Gives way and suddenly it’s day again The sun is in the east Even though the day is done Two suns in the sunset, hmph Could be the human race is run
|
|
#4507608 - 02/16/20 07:09 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: EAF331 MadDog]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
|
Making Khan an actual character with depth instead of "I'm Khannnnnn! I'll have my vengeance!" repeat of lines from ST2 was the best thing about Into Darkness. Assuming that's accurate, for the sake of argument, it's still like saying "Not having ketchup all over it was the best thing about that sh*t sandwich they served for lunch." Additionally, everything they added, while possibly giving the character depth, was counter-productive to the whole movie. It required a bunch of stuff to happen that took away from overall story, like him just trying to save his crew undermining his villainy, and also making Starfleet and the main cast either evil or stupid, or both. Khan of TOS was one of the more stupid villains. Yes I love the movie, but the character was just an idiot whose projection of menace was well, "I'm Khaan!". Even if you had seen "Space Seed" it added little to project how fearsome everyone described him as, suspension of belief was strongly required to elevate him to the level of villainy he was due to have. There were definitely flaws in the movie (more on that in a minute), but I thought that character served is purpose in creating a situation for the primary cast to do what's needed to tell a good story, pretty much the opposite of the Khan character in STID, where he interfered with telling a good story. One flaw that occurred to me about ST2 was right before the infamous "KAAAAHHHHNNN" scream, where Khan beams up the Genesis device, and Kirk says "You've got Genesis, but you don't have me. You're going to have to come down here." Well, Khan just beamed up Genesis, which means he should have a fix on Kirk, especially since Kirk was using a communicator, so Kahn could have just beamed Kirk up as well and been done with it, not having to go down at all.
|
|
#4507609 - 02/16/20 07:16 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
One flaw that occurred to me about ST2 was right before the infamous "KAAAAHHHHNNN" scream, where Khan beams up the Genesis device, and Kirk says "You've got Genesis, but you don't have me. You're going to have to come down here." Well, Khan just beamed up Genesis, which means he should have a fix on Kirk, especially since Kirk was using a communicator, so Kahn could have just beamed Kirk up as well and been done with it, not having to go down at all. Wasn't Kirk just acting desperate to make Khan think he was desperate? Desperate people will say anything. Battle of the minds and Kirk won.
The rusty wire that holds the cork that keeps the anger in Gives way and suddenly it’s day again The sun is in the east Even though the day is done Two suns in the sunset, hmph Could be the human race is run
|
|
#4507610 - 02/16/20 07:24 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: MarkG]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
|
One flaw that occurred to me about ST2 was right before the infamous "KAAAAHHHHNNN" scream, where Khan beams up the Genesis device, and Kirk says "You've got Genesis, but you don't have me. You're going to have to come down here." Well, Khan just beamed up Genesis, which means he should have a fix on Kirk, especially since Kirk was using a communicator, so Kahn could have just beamed Kirk up as well and been done with it, not having to go down at all. Wasn't Kirk just acting desperate to make Kahn think he was desperate? Desperate people will say anything. Battle of the minds and Kirk won. But why didn't Khan beam him up? I know he said he could leave him buried for all eternity, etc., but I find it hard to believe that Khan wouldn't beam him up to see him face to face if it were that easy.
|
|
#4507611 - 02/16/20 07:29 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
MarkG
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,488
The Bayou
|
One flaw that occurred to me about ST2 was right before the infamous "KAAAAHHHHNNN" scream, where Khan beams up the Genesis device, and Kirk says "You've got Genesis, but you don't have me. You're going to have to come down here." Well, Khan just beamed up Genesis, which means he should have a fix on Kirk, especially since Kirk was using a communicator, so Kahn could have just beamed Kirk up as well and been done with it, not having to go down at all. Wasn't Kirk just acting desperate to make Khan think he was desperate? Desperate people will say anything. Battle of the minds and Kirk won. But why didn't Khan beam him up? I know he said he could leave him buried for all eternity, etc., but I find it hard to believe that Khan wouldn't beam him up to see him face to face if it were that easy. Because Kirk was stranded (or so Khan thought) the same way that he felt he was stranded by Kirk. Eye for an eye, nothing else required (which might have saved Kirk's life...like how the bad guy never puts a quick end to 007 when he has the chance). EDIT: Kirk's desperate attempt to manipulate Khan's actions ("...come down here.") and then his screaming at Khan for leaving him to rot inside a planet was apparently enough satisfaction to Khan's sense of justice and intellect.
Last edited by MarkG; 02/16/20 08:37 PM.
The rusty wire that holds the cork that keeps the anger in Gives way and suddenly it’s day again The sun is in the east Even though the day is done Two suns in the sunset, hmph Could be the human race is run
|
|
#4507768 - 02/18/20 11:35 AM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: MarkG]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
|
So there's a new Khan, eh? I did some research and some were upset for 'whitewashing' Khan into a plain white dude, while the makers of the movie didn't want to "support demonizing anyone of color." When will it end? It already has in 1982 when the *real* Khan (Ricardo Montalbán) died in battle. What a good movie. Stupid SJW controversy aside, Cumberbatch got the role because at the time his star was rising in Hollywood and he was a "hot" property so the producers jumped at the chance to get him for the role.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4507793 - 02/18/20 04:18 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,779
EAF331 MadDog
XBL: LanceHawkins
|
XBL: LanceHawkins
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,779
Oslo, Norway
|
So there's a new Khan, eh? I did some research and some were upset for 'whitewashing' Khan into a plain white dude, while the makers of the movie didn't want to "support demonizing anyone of color." When will it end? It already has in 1982 when the *real* Khan (Ricardo Montalbán) died in battle. What a good movie. Stupid SJW controversy aside, Cumberbatch got the role because at the time his star was rising in Hollywood and he was a "hot" property so the producers jumped at the chance to get him for the role. And casting CUmberbatch was no worse or better than casting a mexican to play a man named "Khan" to begin with.
|
|
#4507794 - 02/18/20 04:27 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: EAF331 MadDog]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
|
So there's a new Khan, eh? I did some research and some were upset for 'whitewashing' Khan into a plain white dude, while the makers of the movie didn't want to "support demonizing anyone of color." When will it end? It already has in 1982 when the *real* Khan (Ricardo Montalbán) died in battle. What a good movie. Stupid SJW controversy aside, Cumberbatch got the role because at the time his star was rising in Hollywood and he was a "hot" property so the producers jumped at the chance to get him for the role. And casting CUmberbatch was no worse or better than casting a mexican to play a man named "Khan" to begin with. Montalban easily passes for Indian more so than Cumberbatch.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4507849 - 02/18/20 10:49 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
|
And many, if not most, of the issues mentioned could have been avoided if they had just done something original instead of crapping all over ST2. It just seemed like a cheap, lazy money grab. It's like they thought "Let's redo ST2 because everybody like that one, but mix it up and make Khan a good guy (basically), Kirk a bad guy, and swap the actions of Kirk and Spock. That's really clever of us!"
They could have come up with a new villain, or maybe re-use one that hadn't been in a movie yet, and come up with a unique story around them and not have to worry about trying to wedge in key activities from another movie but trying to add a twist.
|
|
#4507855 - 02/18/20 11:37 PM
Re: The Future of the Trek Franchise
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,736
SC
|
It just seemed like a cheap, lazy money grab. It's like they thought "Let's redo ST2 because everybody like that one, but mix it up and make Khan a good guy (basically), Kirk a bad guy, and swap the actions of Kirk and Spock. That's really clever of us!" EXACTLY.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
|
|