RLM - Half in the Bag does STID [SPOILERS]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by MrPointy, May 25, 2013.

  1. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    That and it seems he would've been playing much the same character he played in Skyfall.
     
  2. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I liked the review.

    I think the two-part review on Star Trek (2009) was more informative to the changes made for this next generation of Star Trek. Everything is hyper now.
     
  3. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    You're right, none of that makes sense. So you're agreeing that STID makes no sense, right?
     
  4. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    You know, I've been making all these points about TWOK for years, and people just responded as if I was a little nutty. (Not that they were wrong, mind.) Funny thing, it's still probably my favorite Trek film.

    It just drives me nuts when people act like it's some cinematic masterpiece and Nick Meyer could do know wrong. He wrote the thing in a week; it's obvious.

    Furthermore, I could say something like :"The film has TONS of logical problems. But so what? It's hugely entertaining." Which one am I talking about?
     
  5. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Let's all agree that every Star Trek movie, episode, novel, comic etc is a bag of shit.
     
  6. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Showgirls?
     
  7. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I'm saying it makes no less sense than The Wrath of Khan generally. In other posts I've admitted that it has story issues. I love TWOK, I love Star Trek Into Darkness.
     
  8. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Showgirls wasn't entertaining.
     
  9. OpenMaw

    OpenMaw Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Everett, Washington
    Well, while I don't agree that Into Darkness is as shallow as some people are saying, and it certainly has it's flaws, i'm going to stand up for TWOK here with equal footing.

    Outside of the Genesis device, which is simply a matter of saying it is a science beyond our current understanding, Khan being able to run a starship "in a matter of hours" is not that far off base. Remember he studied the Enterprise technical manuals and database in Space Seed. He probably only needed to reacquaint himself once he was on Reliant. The basics wouldn't have changed.

    As indicated in TWOK, he never "made it down" there because of the timing situation.

    He didn't beam Kirk up and kill him because, well, his revenge on Kirk was slow death. With the Enterprise destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to look for Kirk. They'd presume he and everyone else was on the Enterprise when it was destroyed. That was Khan's plan all along, and he made that clear. He wanted to hurt Kirk, not kill him.


    Ceti Alpha VI just one day deciding to explode randomly... Now that... That's just stupid. ;)
     
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Khan has to be dumb because the script calls for him to be dumb.

    *Where exactly did he think the rest of the Regula One people went? Where did he think Genesis went? Khan didn't ask Terrell or Chekov how the rest of the Regula One crew might have escaped? He knows there's a Carol Marcus yet there isn't one when he arrived.

    *Khan says in Space Seed that he would need help to run a starship. Yes he's smart but he only has like twelve people. Plus the technology is completely different than what he experienced when on the Enterprise.

    *And Khan didn't need to go down to get Kirk, he could have simply beamed him up.

    The Wrath of Khan is a hell of a movie. But the story is flawed, like pretty much every Trek movie story.
     
  11. OpenMaw

    OpenMaw Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Everett, Washington
    All throughout TWOK there are indications that Khan is not exactly of sound judgement. 15 years of Hell would do that. It's less him being stupid, and more him being driven by a rage and a compulsion for revenge that is clouding his judgement.

    He may not have known Regula One even had a transporter, and he was pressed for time. He tortured and murdered everyone in a fury when his questions were not answered.

    And yet in Space Seed he knew the ship well enough to change the settings of key systems. His need of people was likely due to the ships size more than anything. He was more than willing to kill the entire command staff "Each of you will go in there. Die while the others watch!" More likely he just wanted the fastest route to total control, and that could be facilitated by the command staff.

    Arguing the technology difference is moot, since a lot of that depends on how you take the visual changes between the TV show sets and the big screen film sets. The technology was very likely not that different in terms of how it was supposed to function.

    I never said he did. I was referring to Khan not going down to the transporter room.

    But again, as far as killing Kirk is concerned, he had no intention of doing either because it isn't what he wanted to do in the first place. He wanted Kirk to suffer just as he had suffered. That was his whole motivation. Leave Kirk to rot, destroy the Enterprise, and leave with Genesis. It's incredibly straightforward. You might find flaws in it, sure, but Khan not killing Kirk outright on the moon is not one of them. It's fully addressed in the movie as to why Khan does what he does there.
     
  12. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    I won't do that, because the argument is that they can still be fun, great, and entertaining movies despite the flaws. The problem is people look at the JJ films, see the flaws in plot or story, proclaim they are stupid, dumb, and not real Star Trek, while the best film of the original cast, is guilty of the exact same sins. It's hypocritical. A person doesn't have to like the new films, but if you're going to come here and rail on them, at least back up your dislike with something that the original show isn't guilty of.
     
  13. Kruezerman

    Kruezerman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Location:
    Meatloaf with Macaroni and Cheese
    I pose a question here, what is THE "perfect" movie or story or whatever? Something with no plotholes or the like? Does such a thing exist?

    Is such a thing possible?
     
  14. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Tokyo Story?

    I suppose the safe bet would be Casablanca. I don't think it's the best film ever made, but I doubt you'll ever find a better script.
     
  15. Kruezerman

    Kruezerman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Location:
    Meatloaf with Macaroni and Cheese
    What do you mean by safe?
     
  16. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Like what? Depending on who you ask, the old stuff is guilty of anything and everything.

    We must like all Star Trek the same. None of it is better or worse than anything that comes before or after.

    : /
     
  17. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Like as in "the obvious choice."
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I can understand someone not particularly liking a continuation/update of a series they loved. Hell, I've had a hard time with both the Futurama and Arrested Development continuations. I just hate when they hammer on it for things that were actually in abundance in the originals.

    It really comes down to nothing more than does it feel right/wrong to an individual viewer. I'm lukewarm on Star Trek 2009, it feels both right and wrong at the same time in comparison to the original Star Trek. I find myself loving Star Trek Into Darkness a little more every time I see it because it simply feels right.
     
  19. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Great point. Somehow, their hypocrisy (in bold) escapes some--particularly when they have the habit of posting several times a day, returning to quote others minutes or hours later, etc. Time is being dedicated, yet HitB is somehow doing something different.

    Yeah, sure.

    Well said. Someone could suggest than the gaggle of pro-nuTrek members are easily spoon-fed plots that would not make a decent Scooby-Doo episode if not for the CG spectacle...but that's not happening. Legitimate criticism is posted here and off-site, only to meet the usual venom-filled nuTrek defense squad.


    Not only untrue, but if ST is dumb, then what does it say about those who continue to show up to support the latest dumb entry?

    The defense squad did not take that into consideration.
     
  20. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I just understand that all Trek has flaws, I love it despite its flaws. Just like I love the latest movie despite its flaws.

    If you love something then your far more forgiving of its flaws.
     

Share This Page