View Single Post
Old July 15 2013, 07:54 PM   #17
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Comparing actors' portrayals of the same role (possible spoilers)

DalekJim wrote: View Post
...and with a better script he'd have given good competition. As it stands, he's kinda a generic modern blockbuster villain in the mould of Ledger's Joker, Loki from The Avengers, and Silva from Skyfall. Though they were much better.

... The fact originally conceived villain John Harrison turned out to be Khan in a contrived twist, was incidental to the storyline and amounted to a gimmick. Quality will always beat gimmick.
DalekJim wrote: View Post
Doing Khan is lazy and obvious but I wouldn't mind as much if they did use him, as long as they did it properly. It was the weird halfway measured John Harrison angle we got that made Khan lack impact.

I keep forgetting the Benedict Cumberbatch villain in the movie I saw this summer was Khan. And I'm a Star Trek obsessive.
DalekJim wrote: View Post
Remember when Star Trek had good writers? It was ace.
DalekJim wrote: View Post
Yes, I think my favourite DS9, TNG, and TOS writers are better than Orci and Kurtzman.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I suspect it's the genre itself you object to most of all.
Not really. There can be smart action blockbusters, or at least blockbusters that try to be smart. I don't see stupidity as something to be praised.

Now you'll reply with "But it must be good man, it sells loads!", completely misunderstanding that I don't care about that.
No, here's where I reply that the topic of this thread is "comparing actors' portrayals of the same role"—specifically Cumberbatch's and Montalban's portrayals of Khan—and that if one has a complaint about the "smartness" of the writing, one really ought to go start a thread with that as the primary topic and leave off attempts at peevishly hijacking this one.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote