View Single Post
Old October 15 2013, 02:14 AM   #138
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: Khan the most dangerous enemy of the original crew?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
You see, I'm actually fine with the references you mentioned right there, because they're not vital. Just little easter eggs for fun, not something the film really depended on.
The film hardly "depended" on the crew knowing about OldSpock. It's obvious they were made aware of it at some point, but we never do see when or why. They chose to address it in the tie-in material, but had they elected NOT to do so, it would have been as much of a "plot hole" as Admiral Kirk suddenly having an adult son named David Marcus that we never saw or heard of before.
I brought it up because I thought it was a peculiar thing that nobody seemed to be weirded out on the bridge, especially Bones. Why it struck me as peculiar is because Spock seemed to want to stay incognito so not to interfere with anyone else's path, even in STID he says he made that vow. Before actually seeing the film, I assumed Spock would contact via small monitor, privately. Then his whole face fills up the screen. OH. But like I always said, it's only minor. My problem with the scene isn't the bridge crews' non-reaction, it's just how much the inclusion of OldSpock feels like fan service to me. OH, IT'S NIMOY, HE'S TALKING ABOUT KHAN!!! FANGASM!!! REMEMBER TWOK? GREAT FILM RIGHT? And as I said, I preferred that Nimoy bowed out in the 2009 film because it felt like the right thing to do, having him pass on the torch, letting the new cast go onto their own unique adventures. That's what I really want for this new crew, not to revisit old ideas whether it's NimoySpock or Khan.

It also gives the Enterprise a sense of history to those who never actually read those comics. I actually thought the Mudd incident was referring to Harry Mudd, as in they have already encountered him by this point. I still consider the thing with the crew being totally casual to the conversation minor, but I detest the idea that you have to read a comic book tie on or a video game tie in just to understand why there are holes the film left open.
I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what a "plot hole" is.
I'm not saying the Spock convo itself was a hole, I just hate the idea of films leaving it to other media to explain away errors/holes/ect. That hasn't happened with Trek, so far, but I've seen that in other franchises and would dislike Trek to fall down that trap.

However, it is very different from references in IRON MAN 3, because at least those are expected to be picked up because it's safe to assume a major chunk of your audience has seen THE AVENGERS, which was a major film, not a comic book or video game.
Not really. The plot twist of having the Mandarin turn out to be a drunken British actor working for someone a lot worse goes right over the heads of anyone who never read the Iron Man comics and doesn't know who the original Mandarin actually was. Actually, the post-credits scene in "The Avengers" has this feature too since I haven't met anyone under the age of about 37 who knows who Thanos is.
That's not what I was actually talking about. I'm referring to IRON MAN 3 recalling events from previous installments such as Stark throwing the missile into the wormhole. I say those references work fine because it's safe to assume most would pick up on that given how popular these films are. You are right of the Mandarin thing though. I didn't know what the exact spoiler was, but I was aware something happened with the character that would irritate comic book readers. I'm more of a casual reader, I never heard of the villain especially since I know very little of IRON MAN in the realm of comic books. As much as I enjoyed the film, I can understand why fans might be upset, seeing that a popular villain was radically altered to their expectations. I think it's too bad, because I was curious to see the Mandarin and what makes him one of Stark's best antagonists. A proper adaptations rather than a twist. It was a clever twist though, much more clever than Khan 2.0. Much better marketed too, where Trek's filmmakers simply said "no, it's not Khan, I swear".

For me, the only canon that truly matters is the films.
That basically ceased to be the case four years ago.
That's too bad then, since I have zero interest in getting into the comic books and video games, especially since I've heard awful things about the latter. As long as the Trek films don't depend too much on tie-ins, I'm totally fine with the idea of canon expanded.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote