RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,882
Posts: 5,329,423
Members: 24,556
Currently online: 694
Newest member: EvyR55

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 10 2013, 03:39 AM   #31
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

If you think about it, having her in the wheelchair instead of dead works into the story better, especially if they exaggerated how crippled she was.

"I shall leave you as you've left her..." if you will.
__________________
I haven't much to say.
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:43 AM   #32
Sran
Fleet Captain
 
Sran's Avatar
 
Location: The Captain's Table
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
If you think about it, having her in the wheelchair instead of dead works into the story better, especially if they exaggerated how crippled she was.

"I shall leave you as you've left her..." if you will.
It also works well given that Khan crippled the Enterprise, the leading lady in Kirk's life.

--Sran
__________________
"Many things seem clever to an imbecile." --Captain Thelin th'Valrass, USS Enterprise-- "The Chimes at Midnight"
Sran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:44 AM   #33
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

Yup.

Also, the obvious homage to "The Menagerie."
__________________
I haven't much to say.
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:47 AM   #34
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

Sran wrote: View Post
It's a reasonable assumption that most Starfleet officers are somewhat ambitious (they would have to be to qualify for admission to the academy), and higher-ranking officers certainly yield a great deal of power.
The difference is this: Just because Starfleet officers have power, doesn't mean they lust after it. Yet that is exactly what Augments like Khan do. They don't just have power, they don't just want power, they CRAVE power. It's ALL they want. It's what they were, quite literally, designed to want. They can't NOT want it.

Conversely, you can have power but not love it. Starfleet officers have power because, well, they sort of have it by default. It's inherent in the command structure. Everyone in Starfleet has power if they last long enough. But to LOVE power is to care about nothing but oneself, and that of course precludes all considerations of love or compassion - both of which are all about concern for others.

Khan's genetic enhancements make him something of an outlier, but no one is completely without positive emotions.
They can be if they were designed to be. Remember, everything about Augments is genetically engineered and planned.

Sran wrote: View Post
as Khan and his followers believed themselves superior to everyone else, it's possible that they disregarded traditional marriage practices. Khan may have had multiple wives or consorts during his exile.
Could be, could be. The Augments are like the Nietzscheans from Andromeda, really. In both cases - the Nietzscheans even more explicitly - everything about their lives is dedicated to the love of oneself, the accumulation of power for one's self. Compassion, true caring for others, is literally an alien concept to them (one only has to read Nietzsche himself to realize that). The Nietzscheans, for example, care about family structure and marriage only so far as it ensures the continuation of their genetic line. They don't truly love their partners; they only have them because it makes more Nietzscheans. Same story here, really.
__________________
In labor news: Longshoremen walked off the piers today. Rescue operations are continuing.

Last edited by Mr. Laser Beam; June 10 2013 at 04:34 AM.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:54 AM   #35
Sran
Fleet Captain
 
Sran's Avatar
 
Location: The Captain's Table
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
They can be if they were designed to be. Remember, everything about Augments is genetically engineered and planned.
Khan may have been without compassion, but I don't think he was designed that way, not on purpose. Genetic enhancement was intended to improve the human race. The supermen spawned from it were an accident, Khan included. The scientists responsible realized too late the severity of their mistake. Genetic engineering was eventually outlawed in the Federation to prevent men like Khan from coming into existence.

--Sran
__________________
"Many things seem clever to an imbecile." --Captain Thelin th'Valrass, USS Enterprise-- "The Chimes at Midnight"
Sran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 04:08 AM   #36
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
If you think about it, having her in the wheelchair instead of dead works into the story better
Wheelchair on a desert planet. Cruel.
__________________
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 June 10 2013, 05:52 AM   #37
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
No the part where Khan says something like "McGivers = beloved wife" was cut.

"Beloved wife" by itself is completely nondescript.
That line was shot, though. It wasn't cut until post-production.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 01:21 PM   #38
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Things like compassion and love are incompatible with ambition and power.
History is full of powerful and ambitious people who passionately loved and cared for their spouses or lovers. What about Napoleon and Josephine?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Right now I'm wondering why Khan didn't simply revive his wife using his blood. But then again TWOK is filled with so many plot holes...
I guess I must have missed the scene where it was said that Khan's blood had the magical power to heal the sick and/or raise the dead.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Khan's genetic enhancements make him something of an outlier, but no one is completely without positive emotions.
They can be if they were designed to be. Remember, everything about Augments is genetically engineered and planned.

Sran wrote: View Post
as Khan and his followers believed themselves superior to everyone else, it's possible that they disregarded traditional marriage practices. Khan may have had multiple wives or consorts during his exile.
Could be, could be. The Augments are like the Nietzscheans from Andromeda, really. In both cases - the Nietzscheans even more explicitly - everything about their lives is dedicated to the love of oneself, the accumulation of power for one's self. Compassion, true caring for others, is literally an alien concept to them (one only has to read Nietzsche himself to realize that). The Nietzscheans, for example, care about family structure and marriage only so far as it ensures the continuation of their genetic line. They don't truly love their partners; they only have them because it makes more Nietzscheans. Same story here, really.
All of which, while certainly plausible, is a retcon. Even calling Khan and his followers "Augments" is a retcon. In "Space Seed," no mention was made of genetic engineering or enhancement; the "supermen" in artificial hibernation aboard the Botany Bay were the product of simple eugenics. All that Augment stuff came way later.
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 01:54 PM   #39
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

Can't believe so many people think it would've been good to have his wife in the film.

Her death was a huge contributing factor to his thirst for revenge. A lot of that would've been swept away had she popped up waving at her former captain.
__________________
Want an awesome read? Check out "Showdown: A Darker Evil Rising" on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-Darke...er+evil+rising
Trek Survivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:39 PM   #40
E-DUB
Captain
 
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

Zero chance the wife was anybody but Lt. McGivers. Otherwise Khan wouldn't have been wearing a starfleet delta as a necklace. "Well, dear. It's a present from an ex-girlfriend."
E-DUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:51 PM   #41
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

E-DUB wrote: View Post
Zero chance the wife was anybody but Lt. McGivers. Otherwise Khan wouldn't have been wearing a starfleet delta as a necklace. "Well, dear. It's a present from an ex-girlfriend."
You mean the style of Starfleet arrowhead, set in a circle, that they didn't have on the show back when Space Seed was made, but which is rather more in the style of TMP?



It's a ret-Khan!
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:55 PM   #42
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Delta Vega
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
The wife should have been shown in the film in some capacity. It's hard to take a villain too seriously when his motives are complete hearsay. The issue was only addressed by one throw-away line that dismissed the issue and shooed it off screen in hopes no one would notice.

There needs to be some kind of "proof" for the audience.
Audiences so not need a visual reference for personal stories, as the person telling it is considered a believeable source. Only screenwriters thinkinf audences all suffer from the videogame mentality--where everything is visually spelled out--resort such uneccessary scenes, and it becomes less about character building than setpieces.

One great example where no visual reference was needed was in Jaws; we did not need a visual flashback to Quint's experience with shark attacks after the sinking of the Indianapolis to understand his determination to kill THE shark, or why he said he would never wear a lifejacket again. We got it. Similarly, we did not need Marla on screen (in flashback to her death, or anything else), to accept why Khan would want to kill the man he held (ultimately) responsible for exposing her to the creatures of that world.

I seriously doubt anyone in 1982 (or beyond) questioned Khan's motivations.

They could've used someone else. No one would notice.
It is called respect for the actress who brought the character to life.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 08:32 PM   #43
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Audiences so not need a visual reference for personal stories,
Filmmaking is visual reference of personal stories. How would this have even worked in the silent era otherwise?

Buster Keaton wants to play a pickpocket. He can go about it two ways:

Have a dialog frame that reads, "This is Bob; he's a pickpocket."

Or write a scene where he picks someone's pocket.

What do you think he's going to do? What's going to be the most effective and believable for the audience?


as the person telling it is considered a believeable source.
He's the villain!

Only screenwriters thinkinf audences all suffer from the videogame mentality--where everything is visually spelled out--resort such uneccessary scenes, and it becomes less about character building than setpieces.
Ridiculous.

Since Barney and Fred were drawing on cave walls, the golden rule of storytelling has always been "show don't tell." At least since the Greek plays, [long] scenes have been written and elaborate sets have been erected for the sole purpose of adding merit and weight to a character's actions. Because, you know, they show; they don't tell.

This methodology has always been apart of film. But, by your logic, they may has well have just left the whole Paris sequence out of Casablanca.

Funny thing about TWOK is does a lot of telling and not an awful lot of showing.

One great example where no visual reference was needed was in Jaws; we did not need a visual flashback to Quint's experience with shark attacks after the sinking of the Indianapolis to understand his determination to kill THE shark, or why he said he would never wear a lifejacket again. We got it.
Aside from equating one of the great film monologs to a single throwaway line, this analogy is totally erroneous.

Quint was neither the primary antagonist nor protagonist of the film. He could have been completely cut with minimal effect on the plot. Therefore, his motivations and backstory were ultimately irrelevant to the narrative.

Brody's, however, were all clearly depicted on screen.

The shark is never implied nor expected to be anything more than a mindless animal. It's shown to be a mindless animal. But when you call your movie "The Wrath of Khan," it's standard procedure to show why this Khan bloke is wrathing.

I seriously doubt anyone in 1982 (or beyond) questioned Khan's motivations.
It has long been established as one of the film's biggest mistakes. It's been brought up in reviews and other assorted writings and musings, and gets mentioned around here at least once a year.

it is called respect for the actress who brought the character to life.
I forgot. Marla Mcgivers is iconic.
__________________
I haven't much to say.
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 10:30 PM   #44
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Delta Vega
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Audiences so not need a visual reference for personal stories,
Filmmaking is visual reference of personal stories. How would this have even worked in the silent era otherwise?
For the example I provided.

For another:

Just as in Star Wars (1977) when Kenobi told Luke this Darth Vader "betrayed and murdered" Luke's father, or Vader helped the Empire hunt down the Jedi, we did not need a pointless flashback to either event, to see that it was used to inspire Luke to eventually fight the Empire, or build Vader's reputation as the great eveil of the galaxy. Obi-Wan's story was enough to get the point across

I've actually heard prequels fans fantasize about inserting prequels scenes into the hut scene, as if generations of moviegoers needed that, which is--of course--an assbrained desire.

Ridiculous.
This from a guy who defends the Harvey Comics-like plotting of nuTrek.

Back to the matter: the person telling the story is the believable source--we have no casue to question the source (as noted in the Kenobi example)...unless you need everything trotted out in front for your face.

Aside from equating one of the great film monologs to a single throwaway line, this analogy is totally erroneous.
Funny how no one else ever had a problem accepting Khan's line--or whined about the absence of Marla. They were too busy following the story, which did not confuse anyone regarding Khan's motives.

Quint was neither the primary antagonist nor protagonist of the film. He could have been completely cut with minimal effect on the plot. Therefore, his motivations and backstory were ultimately irrelevant to the narrative.
Quint's single-minded desire to kill the shark takes center stage: he's the reason the Orca never returns for another ship (or help), which keeps the group at sea long enough for the advantage to completely shift to the shark. By the way, no one builds a character unless it is intended to mean something to his overall behavior. His expressed feelings about the Indianapolis incident come into play when the boat is taking on water, and--of course--as he slides into the shark's mouth.

It has long been established as one of the film's biggest mistakes.
Where is this "established" source? Where are the numbers (of any significance) complaining that Khan's wife should have appeared, and failing that, the villain's motive was unclear?

Where?

and gets mentioned around here at least once a year.
Once a year. Sounds like a glaring problem just killing TWOK's legacy....yep....time for TWOK remastered, where a CG scene of Marla is inserted to finally "clear up" what so many desired for 31 years.


I forgot. Marla Mcgivers is iconic.
All this quotes reveals is your disrespect for a then-ailing actress by trying to turn this into a flaming session.

Good show.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 11:02 PM   #45
Sran
Fleet Captain
 
Sran's Avatar
 
Location: The Captain's Table
Re: Trek II ~ Khan's Wife

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Buster Keaton wants to play a pickpocket. He can go about it two ways:

Have a dialog frame that reads, "This is Bob; he's a pickpocket."

Or write a scene where he picks someone's pocket.

What do you think he's going to do? What's going to be the most effective and believable for the audience?
It's usually best to show the audience an event rather than merely describing it, but the plot and pacing of a particular film don't always make this possible. Khan's dialogue was enough for the audience to understand what happened. Given the horror experienced by Terrell and Chekov as the eels entered their ears, it's not at all difficult to imagine that Khan's wife died horribly.

CorporalClegg wrote:
He's the villain!
Not all villans lie. Based on the condition of the Botany Bay, it can be inferred that Khan's telling the truth. His people were struggling to survive on that world. That there would be casulaties should have surprised no one.

CorporalClegg wrote:
The shark is never implied nor expected to be anything more than a mindless animal. It's shown to be a mindless animal. But when you call your movie "The Wrath of Khan," it's standard procedure to show why this Khan bloke is wrathing.
Once again, it's not at all difficult to understand Khan's hatred of Kirk. Look at how he and his people were forced to live after the Enterprise left them there. Would the death of Marla add that much more to the film's plot?

CorporalClegg wrote:
It has long been established as one of the film's biggest mistakes. It's been brought up in reviews and other assorted writings and musings, and gets mentioned around here at least once a year.
Never once have I heard anyone complain about her absence from the film. Do you really think that her inclusion would have added that much more to the plot? Khan's motives are clear from the film's dialogue. Although it's usually best to show the audience a given scenario, Ricardo Montalban's acting more than made up for any missing story elements.

CorporalClegg wrote:
I forgot. Marla Mcgivers is iconic.
As the film's production staff went to the trouble of bringing back Kyle to be Reliant's communications officer, it would not have made sense to use another actress to play her, and choosing another in place of an ailing woman would have been disrespectful. It doesn't matter that she wasn't a big name actress. She made the character what it was and deserved to play the role had it been used again.
__________________
"Many things seem clever to an imbecile." --Captain Thelin th'Valrass, USS Enterprise-- "The Chimes at Midnight"
Sran is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
star trek ii, twok

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 10:14 PM.

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