Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Noddy, Sep 30, 2013.
Definitely... dramatic effect.
Yes, and the franchise had never emphasized on that until now with STID.
I was pretty much going by individual characters. I still think Dukat is a legitimate case. It's too bad Tomalak wasn't used that much after a few episodes in TNG. Would have been nice to see him pop in more often, or at least meet the crew in person.
I would have said something along the lines "one of the most dangerous adversaries I ever encountered", but that's just me. Actually, scratch that, I would have never included the Spock Prime phone call at all.
"The Franchise" didn't spend a lot of time in the 23rd Century. There weren't a lot of opportunities for characters from that time to ramble on about how dangerous Khan was. Still on the litside they've managed a few books and comics about Khan. And even in the 24th Century, the repercussions of Khan and his brethren were being felt.
Yeah, he is. Just not the only one.
"One of the most" still undercuts Khan being the big bad in STID.
You know what would we needed: Prime Spock saying to kill Khan. What after the whole "The most dangerous line..." have him look at Nu-Spock, stone cold expression, as the info sinks in to the Nu-Crew, no other questions, Prime-Spock says "If you value your lives, you must kill him."
How so? If I say 'Pizza is one of my absolute favorite foods', it doesn't mean I love donuts any less. Something doesn't have to be the best/worst thing in the universe to be taken seriously.
You're not a character in film where the villain is pizza. Sometimes in film characters say things that contribute to tone, plot or theme of the film.
And just because I call someone 'one of' America's most wanted instead of just 'America's most wanted', you seriously think the audience is going to think 'Oh, well, if he's just one of, then this whole thing must be pretty tame. You can't be a bad-ass when you're just one of.'
I find that non-sensical logic.
Oh you can, but it serves the film better if you hype up the villain. Make him as bad ass as possible. Being Number One on the FBI's Most Wanted List means more than being Number Ten. Having a Number One NYT Bestseller is better than just appearing on a list of ten. Winning a Gold Medal is better than winning the Bronze. Telling someone they are the love of your life is better than saying you're someone I've dated.
Makes perfect sense if you're trying to get a point across, even if it's hyperbole.
I'm not sure it does automatically serve the film better. Why does the point have to be that he is the worst ever?
How does the film differ at all if he is just generally bad-ass - something already fairly well established by the fight on Qonos? We're not even talking about heroes with a long backstory here - he doesn't even have to up the stakes above a long list of past villains. The only person he has to out bad-ass is Nero, which is, frankly, almost guaranteed.
As I said, I wouldn't even have the phone call conversation at all to establish that Khan is dangerous. That was already done with him taking on a squad of Klingons without a scratch. Apparently to these writers, it's not enough to show that he's a badass, they have to have Old Spock say "oh yes, he's legit!"
The thing about Old Prime saying Khan was "the most dangerous" antagonist is that its unintentionally saying "after you deal with Khan, you'll never encounter an enemy as dangerous!". Really though, I kinda hope there is no villain in the next film. That would actually be refreshing for a Star Trek film. Tons of great Trek stories were told without the need to include some villain. THE VOYAGE HOME was the biggest success of the older films, and that not only had no conventional villain but the only phaser used was to lock a door. That's much more ballsy to pull off in a blockbuster, especially today.
All that matters is Khan is the baddest badass in the film he's in. The one the audience is currently watching.
Voyage Home was a fish out of water comedy.
I think you kind of missed the point of this particular scene, especially with the timing of it (in the very next scene with Kirk and Scotty on the vengeance: "I thought he was helping us? / No, I'm pretty sure we're helping him.").
Until now Khan had been playing the victim card, claiming to have been exploited or manipulated or backed into a corner by Admiral Marcus who was the real enemy of the Enterprise and -- to a greater extent -- to all of the Federation. Kirk had even turned to Khan for help in desperation to help take the Vengeance.
For anyone who isn't already familiar with Wrath of Khan (which is to say, all three of my kids, most of my students and my knucklehead cousin who has apparently never seen a good movie in her life) this actually comes as a bit of a revelation: not only does oldspock know who Khan is, he knows his FULL NAME and has fought him before. That, plus Kirk's scene on the Vengeance, foreshadows the revelation that Khan is actually a hell of a lot more dangerous than Marcus; like the Cloud Creature of TOS, it conjures up images of Khan opening up a massive can of whupass on the entire crew and finally being defeated in an epic showdown/battle of wits. Which is more or less what happened; it's just that the details are a lot less interesting than the revelation itself, so the revelation is actually lost on those of us who already know the details.
In that sense, Oldspock sort of represents the perspective of the Veteran Fans: we mostly should have seen this coming, so for us it plays out differently: we know Khan is a crazy super-strong megalomaniac and so we kind of expect him to take the Vengeance on a mission of conquest just like he did with Reliant and Genesis. But for a thirteen-year-old girl who has only ever seen two other Star Trek movies (and only remembers one) and never managed to sit through Space Seed without getting bored, that entire conversation draws an audible "Uh oh..."
Khan may have been playing the victim card, but I never saw any indication that Kirk was buying into that. He knows Khan was exploited by Marcus, but he never forgot that Khan is still responsible for many deaths he caused, including Pike's. He still regarded Khan as a dangerous criminal and was ready to stun him unconscious once Kirk no longer needed his help.
I don't think that all plays out very well, especially for newer viewers since the film never actually explains that Khan was one of Earth's worst tyrants. Maybe it just didn't work for me like it did for you, because I was rolling my eyes too much over the phone conversation, and how everyone seemed to not be a little curious about why Spock is suddenly speaking to his future self, unless he's been telling everyone about it before the movie started.
Their curiosity can wait till the ship is safe.
I dunno about Bones. I'd think he'd be the first guy to go "who the hell were you talking to there"? Heck, I'm surprised Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof were not tempted to add another one-liner for him "My God, there's two of you? Just great."
That would have been hilarious.
Of course not. He's the same guy who blew up the Kelvin Memorial Archive and killed Admiral Pike.
But Kirk doesn't know him beyond being a highly effective and murderous super-soldier. He could have just as easily said "My name... is Master Chief!" and it wouldn't had made a lot of difference. The point being Kirk -- and a portion of the audience -- doesn't know what WE know. They don't know what "Khan" means in the context of Star Trek, and they don't know that Khan is actually a much bigger threat than Marcus could ever hope to be.
Which is how Khan winds up besting them in the end. Despite his very reasonable suspicion that Khan could not be trusted (and having Scotty stun him in the end), he was so focused on taking down Marcus that he under-estimated Khan and let him outmaneuver him.
I don't see how that's even relevant, especially since anyone who knows how to google would be able to figure that out inside of fifteen seconds (and the more curious viewers would find the title "Space Seed" in their google results and Netflix the entire episode).
It doesn't matter who Khan was in the 21st century. What matters is who Khan was in the Enterprise's timeline. This is why Spock SPECIFICALLY asks OldSpock "Did you ever encounter a man named Khan?" And OldSpock doesn't waste his time with historical background, he tells him exactly what he (and therefore, the audience) needs to know.
Put that another way: when a young fan asks a vet "Was Khan a villain in the old Trek?" the answer will usually be some variation on, "OMG, you don't know? Khan was the BADDEST viallin of the old Trek! He had a whole movie and everything! He even... you know what? Fuck it, we're goin to Best Buy! Today's your lucky day."
There was a deleted scene in STXI where Kirk told everyone about FutureSpock as his explanation for how he got on board the ship (which is basically why they let him stay in charge). Apart from that, there's indications in the comics tie-ins that Kirk and Spock both went and explained it all to the crew afterwards, especially since OldSpock is apparently a pretty big figure in the New Vulcan settlement and hasn't bothered to use an alias.
I'm not sure how he would have handled things differently if he knew who Khan was in the grand scheme of things. He would have still had him stunned and then think his problem was put aside. Overall, nothing has changed with the "revelation" unless you're factoring in the whole "destiny" angle.
I'm sorry, but I'm still not understanding how any of this makes this conversation between the two work. If they wanted to really hype up the fact that Kirk was going to go up against one of the most famous foes of the franchise, they could have hyped it up in the promotions and emphasize Cumberbatch taking on an iconic role, not try to cram it in with Old Spock just because they wanted to hide the "surprise" earlier in the film for Khan to reveal himself. You're only convincing me more that this whole idea of John Harrison becoming Khan was misguided and didn't do anything to make the film any more effective.
If only that happened, then it wouldn't have been so off-putting.
Separate names with a comma.