RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,091
Posts: 5,399,245
Members: 24,735
Currently online: 440
Newest member: extremedalek

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 28 2013, 09:38 PM   #76
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: Why Khan?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
It's a post-2233 reboot.
You keep saying this as if this date means anything to anyone. It doesn't, well except to you and maybe five Enterprise fans.

I think the writers are big enough Trek fans to respect the basic premise of canon and continuity.
The writers know canon is a myth and continuity is a convenience used in world-building. But like a t-Square, it's often best left in the desk.

Star Trek universe for almost 50 years.
No, it's dogmatic doctrine perpetuated by fandom.

How would fans react to a Star Wars Ep VII that retroactively makes Darth Vader a woman, or ignores all events from Empire Strikes Back?
Why do these threads always culminate in someone trying to make orange juice out of apples?

Don't really need to dignify this response other than to say the thought of Khan = Darth Vader is .
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 10:24 PM   #77
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Why Khan?

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
It's a post-2233 reboot.
You keep saying this as if this date means anything to anyone. It doesn't, well except to you and maybe five Enterprise fans.
It was the date specified in the movie for when the timelines diverged. Don't be obnoxious.

And I hated Enterprise; found it to be senseless fan-wank that tried TOO HARD to explain things that didn't need explaining. In fact, I didn't watched any Trek series beyond TNG because they became stale. I find Abrams' approach refreshing because it opens new ground for new stories, BUT moreover because of the fact that it claims to respect the previously-established universe. I'm not a "purist" who wants to see cardboard sets or crap like that. I just want to see a follow through with what was established in the last film.

How would fans react to a Star Wars Ep VII that retroactively makes Darth Vader a woman, or ignores all events from Empire Strikes Back?
Why do these threads always culminate in someone trying to make orange juice out of apples?

Don't really need to dignify this response other than to say the thought of Khan = Darth Vader is .
I'm simply responding to the people who suggest "ignoring" Trek canon should be seen on the same level as the different versions of Batman or Superman or Bond.

But from your reaction, when the suggestion of changing established lore in another "space saga" is made, apparently you DO have a pretty definite opinion.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 10:28 PM   #78
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Why Khan?

Look what they did to Zefram Cochrane between "Metamorphosis" and Star Trek: First Contact. White British Khan would be pretty much the same thing.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 10:33 PM   #79
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Why Khan?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
It's a post-2233 reboot.
You keep saying this as if this date means anything to anyone. It doesn't, well except to you and maybe five Enterprise fans.
It was the date specified in the movie for when the timelines diverged. Don't be obnoxious.

And I hated Enterprise; found it to be senseless fan-wank that tried TOO HARD to explain things that didn't need explaining. In fact, I didn't watched any Trek series beyond TNG because they became stale. I find Abrams' approach refreshing because it opens new ground for new stories, BUT moreover because of the fact that it claims to respect the previously-established universe. I'm not a "purist" who wants to see cardboard sets or crap like that. I just want to see a follow through with what was established in the last film.

How would fans react to a Star Wars Ep VII that retroactively makes Darth Vader a woman, or ignores all events from Empire Strikes Back?
Why do these threads always culminate in someone trying to make orange juice out of apples?

Don't really need to dignify this response other than to say the thought of Khan = Darth Vader is .
I'm simply responding to the people who suggest "ignoring" Trek canon should be seen on the same level as the different versions of Batman or Superman or Bond.

But from your reaction, when the suggestion of changing established lore in another "space saga" is made, apparently you DO have a pretty definite opinion.
To be fair, making Darth Vader a woman rips the entirety of Star Wars Saga to shreds, it would change absolutely everything. you could make Luke a female or The Emperor or Yoda or even Han Solo, but, with making Darth Vader a woman it wouldn't really be possible to tell the same story
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 10:36 PM   #80
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why Khan?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
The "alternate/Prime universe" stuff is a fig leaf - they weren't really faithful to it in the first movie, and you can be sure that more and more will diverge with each successive movie.

It's just a reboot, folks.
It's a post-2233 reboot. If it was a clean reboot, there was no need or purpose to include Leonard Nimoy, or the entire time-travel aspect. It wasn't simply a nostalgia bone thrown out to the die hard fans
Yes, it pretty much was.

I'm sure that we could find a more diplomatic term than "nostalgia bone," but it would mean the same thing.

It's remarkable that Trek fans can go on and on about the importance of good characters to worthwhile stories and then declare Chang - a simpleminded moustache-twirler - to have been a "great character." God knows Plummer tried, but having a rotten-to-the-core character who never does a decent thing declaim about patriotism and destiny while reciting random Shakespeare from the original Bartlett's Familiar Quotations does not a "nuanced" character make.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 11:08 PM   #81
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Why Khan?

Sindatur wrote: View Post
To be fair, making Darth Vader a woman rips the entirety of Star Wars Saga to shreds, it would change absolutely everything. you could make Luke a female or The Emperor or Yoda or even Han Solo, but, with making Darth Vader a woman it wouldn't really be possible to tell the same story
"No, Luke: *I* am your mother!"

Problem solved.

There's nothing fundamental about Vader / Anakin Skywalker being male that's paramount to the story. The important part was he/she gave birth to Luke and Leia, and passed on the Jedi powers (and savior stuff).

He was basically androgynous in eps IV-VI. And the fact that he was male in the first three? Ehn. Starbuck and Boomer were recast as women. It was just a reboot.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 11:13 PM   #82
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Why Khan?

I wouldn't hold my breath for the Darth Vader sex change, unless you're an anaerobe.

P.S. Vader is Dutch for father.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 11:23 PM   #83
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Why Khan?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Sindatur wrote: View Post
To be fair, making Darth Vader a woman rips the entirety of Star Wars Saga to shreds, it would change absolutely everything. you could make Luke a female or The Emperor or Yoda or even Han Solo, but, with making Darth Vader a woman it wouldn't really be possible to tell the same story
"No, Luke: *I* am your mother!"

Problem solved.

There's nothing fundamental about Vader / Anakin Skywalker being male that's paramount to the story. The important part was he/she gave birth to Luke and Leia, and passed on the Jedi powers (and savior stuff).

He was basically androgynous in eps IV-VI. And the fact that he was male in the first three? Ehn. Starbuck and Boomer were recast as women. It was just a reboot.
The Emperor was able to manipulate Anakin with the death of his wife due to Child birth, and then the children were sent off to opposite ends of the Galaxy to hide them and keep them safe.

As stated Vader means Father
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 11:36 PM   #84
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: Why Khan?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
I find Abrams' approach refreshing because it opens new ground for new stories, BUT moreover because of the fact that it claims to respect the previously-established universe.
It made no such claims. It was being polite.

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
But from your reaction, when the suggestion of changing established lore in another "space saga" is made, apparently you DO have a pretty definite opinion.
You're right. My definite opinion is lore doesn't matter. That's not the issue. You're false analogy has nothing to do with the two of them both being in space. It's a matter of amplitude.

If you still don't get it, let's borrow from Dennis's signature for a moment. Darth Vader is iconic. Khan is not.

Vader has become the physical embodiment of cinematic villainy and the central representative of it. His physical attributes--the red sword, the scary mask, his silhouette and stance, etc.--are what created that icon. Bring a picture of Darth Vader anywhere in the Western world and people will immediately associate the image with movie bad guys. Many of those people have never seen a Star Wars film, but they know exactly what the image represents. Even if they can't detail who Vader is, they know what he is.

On the other hand, Khan is familiar. He is the bad guy in a mildly successful space film from 1982 who morphed into a modest meme. More importantly, outside of geek circles, this familiarity drops to null.

In other words, Darth Vader will undoubtedly show up in a cultural anthropology paper or two some centuries down the road. Khan will be completely forgotten within a few decades.

But even that is not to suggest Vader can't be messed with. If Abrams comes along and says, "I'm going to make Vader a chick for shits and giggles." There would be rage. But if he makes a valid case for doing so that falls within the realms of reasonable artistic license, most of us (the reasonable folk) wouldn't have a problem with it. But all that is moot because Episode VII is going to be a direct sequel. ST09, despite all your attempts to deny it, is a reboot.

Since you brought them up, lets take things further with Supes, Bats, and Bond. You can argue different formats or whatever your excuse is all you want. But that's really not the issue. They are all bigger than Star Trek, and threw the "canon" charade out the window along time ago.

Of the three, Supes is really the only one who can claim iconic status, or at least the shield is. But people generally see primary colors and a cape and think uber-goodness. But, ultimately, this is moot as the other two are probably more popular.

Let's focus on Bond. Unlike, Star Trek, it does have a source--a "bible" if you will--which has been completely ignored from the word "go." Details have been changed on a whim to fit into whatever artistic agenda the director was trying to convey.

It's only a matter of time before Bond is played by a minority. I suspect it will even be the guy who succeeds Craig. And, yes, EON has seriously considered changing Bond to a woman at least twice. And if Western culture ever gets over its fear of strong women characters, a Jamie Bond is only inevitable.

Of course people will complain. People still hate Craig because he has blond hair. But to most of us, the difference between complaining about hair color and complaining about gender are indistinguishable. It's all lunatic fringe.

Most people won't care. And here's the kicker: Bond is the most popular fictional character in the world. Nearly as many people know James Bond as they do Jesus Christ.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, he's been portrait as white, dark, brown, green, and even a woman. And what about dear old Dad? The same can be said for Him. So if the freaking All Mighty is not immune to reinterpretation, why is some backwater, Melville-quoting supervillain?

So you see, canon is myth.
__________________
Konnichi wa!

Last edited by M'Sharak; March 1 2013 at 12:02 AM. Reason: to fix broken QUOTE tag, clarify quote attribution
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 12:02 AM   #85
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why Khan?

Actually, I don't care whether Vader is a male or female. I'm not that invested in this stuff. Entertain me for two hours and then we can talk about continuity and "icons" and nonsense if we must.

I see all kinds of fan proposals for what they "ought to be doing" with Star Trek - the silliest are the ones talking in glittering generalities about "moving forward" or "exploring new worlds" and then propose that setting a movie in the 27th century or following up on the political fallout of some godforsaken TV war will be "thought-provoking" and somehow improve Trek.

Or they want to bring back the Klingons again. Enough with the Klingons and that goes double for Romulans. What little Abrams has shown so far promises a great deal more entertainment than any of the other proposals I read on the Internet.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 12:03 AM   #86
HaventGotALife
Fleet Captain
 
HaventGotALife's Avatar
 
Re: Why Khan?

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Stories can't help but be "about something," since they tell about human beings and their experiences.

When writers become self-conscious about sending a message or setting up a moral they are telling tales for children.

Star Trek will be a far better series of movies and TV shows if no writer ever again says to him/herself "what message am I attempting to reflect upon society?"

That serves no real purpose other than a reach-around for folks who like to be flattered.
Hey, I'm not asking for Aesop's fables or a parable from the Bible. I'm asking for THEME. I'm asking for a subject matter that leaves me thinking after the movie. I want them to take a subject and flesh it out in as many different ways as possible. Provide counter opinions for a healthy debate, but still make it true to life. Take "Rent," for instance. You'll agree that's not Star Trek, right? Fulfillment in life--all of that is fleshed out in these characters. They foil each other, intertwine, and deal with the same problem. And I am able to take away that from someone's pain of losing friends to AIDS.

When I say true-to-life, for instance, I go back to Picard standing on a rock face talking to Soran. That was just to get out Soran's motivation and that's it. I wasn't lost in the movie after that scene. If an artist is just going to put drama on the big screen--this character is angry, that one is happy, they clash and the angry one makes the happy one suffer--then that's not deep enough for me to enjoy it. You what that is called? A soap opera. A bad one.
__________________
"Cogley was old-fashioned, preferring paper books to computers. He had an extensive collection of books, he claimed never to use the computer in his office."
HaventGotALife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 12:03 AM   #87
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Why Khan?

CommanderRaytas wrote: View Post
Thank you, M. I want to be free to rant anew! Accept no reprints!

It's a win-win for me, you see: if it's not Khan, I'm happy. If it is Khan, I can rant to my heart's delight! In the words of the fantabulous Oberst Landa:

Oooh, THAT'S A BINGO!

__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 12:08 AM   #88
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why Khan?

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
If an artist is just going to put drama on the big screen--this character is angry, that one is happy, they clash and the angry one makes the happy one suffer--then that's not deep enough for me to enjoy it. You what that is called? A soap opera. A bad one.
No it's called "your straw man." It's not even a reasonable description of drama.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 12:14 AM   #89
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Why Khan?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
there was no need or purpose to include Leonard Nimoy, or the entire time-travel aspect.
Yes there was: because it was excellent!

And Nimoy's (and Barrett's voice's) presence was a great stamp of approval. Not needed, but much appreciated! By me and many, many others - esp. those fans who had walked away, jaded and dejected, after ST IV/V/VI, VOY and "Nemesis".
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 12:28 AM   #90
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Why Khan?

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
If an artist is just going to put drama on the big screen--this character is angry, that one is happy, they clash and the angry one makes the happy one suffer--then that's not deep enough for me to enjoy it. You what that is called? A soap opera. A bad one.
Do that on a starship and its called space opera.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.