Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
There is terrorism against Starfleet in Enterprise.
As I said, though, it is explained how Harrison was able to accomplish this feat, and quite handily, too.
**MASSIVE SPOILERS HERE**
During the scene in the brig, Khan explains that he was protecting his family, his crew. Kirk gets angry and berates Khan for killing Christopher Pike and other innocents. Khan then explains that Admiral Marcus controlled him, because Marcus had Khan's people as a bargaining chip, and that what he had to do was ordered by Marcus, who controlled the strings. That's how a supposedly secure facility was compromised. It was all set up by Marcus so that he could order the Enterprise to head to the edge of Klingon space, fire those torpedoes at Kronos where Khan was hiding, at which point the Enterprise's warp core would fail upon return, and they would be identified by the Klingons as the aggressors, at which point Marcus could come in with his new ship, and he could have his war with the Klingons.
It was all a setup by Admiral Marcus.
The reverse is true as well. If you expect to like a movie, you will be more forgiving. As a rule, I am critical, I won't hide my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with this movie no matter what. I will go into it with an open mind, but even if it was spoiler-free, they would get a more critical eye for using Khan again. It begs for comparisons. It begs of trying to make money with what is bankable. Nero was a re-hash of every Star Trek villain, who's only motivation seems to be revenge. They have been trying to re-do Khan for ages. I was critical enough of the first film that I wanted Nero's lines stripped from him the moment I left the movie theater. That's just how I think. My opinions have hardened since 2009 was released. I have had a chance to re-watch Star Trek--from TOS, TNG, DS9, Most of VOY, and Most of ENT, all the movies--and I come into this movie with several things I want as a fan. This was true before I clicked on any spoilers:
1. Something fresh and new. From 2010 on, I have said "I don't want a Greatest Hits. I am so afraid that this will be like Batman in that you put a Joker in the movie, tell Batman's origin every so often (Batman, Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Begins, etc) and people flock to see it. Part of the reason they do that so well is that Batman never got it right. There's always room for improvement. The difference between Star Trek and Batman is that they have been doing it well, social commentary, imagination of what we would find in space, that I don't want that to be lost. Khan, back to when Benico Del Toro was rumored to be Khan, represents trying to do the arch-nemesis off Star Trek, the Joker, to the novice. II was great on many levels, including the revenge villain, but it's those other levels that I have continued to watch II for.
2. Star Trek, to me, is about the wonderment of what we would find in Space--that's why I like small moments like Picard looking out the window in Star Trek: Insurrection. Kirk represented in the Original Series, the attitude of the 1960s Space Program--brash, unafraid, ambitious, and successful. It seems to me that we've lost that and it's something I want Star Trek to continue into this next generation. With JJ Abrams putting lens flares in the first film, and calling it the "bright future" of Trek, I was hopeful. Now, I wonder if that's not just a set-up for us to lose that bright future in the next installment of movies. It was bright, before Nero changed it all.
3. Social Commentary--I like my Star Trek to have something for me to think about when I come out of the movie theater or turn off the television. Special Effects are good for the suspension of disbelief, but they fade in time. 15 years ago, Insurrection looked state-of-the-art. It doesn't anymore. If all a movie can say is "wow, that looked cool!" it has the shelf-life of 10 years, tops. I like timeless Trek where I can apply the history of the world, current headlines, to the story. It shows the imagination and brilliance of the writer to see something timeless. If Trek isn't timeless, part of the reason I don't like the first one as much as some (I think it's mediocre, run-of-the-mill Trek about nature-nurture if you see anything there), then okay.
4. I want a plot that makes sense. Too much of 09 relies on flimsy plotting and calls it "destiny." Like Kirk ending up on Delta Vega and finding Prime Spock. That's quite a coincidence and in the movie theater, it took me right out of it. "That's flimsy." So this film will get a critical eye where this is concerned.
Those are my prejudices before ever reading a spoiler. Don't answer this question--it's rhetorical--I don't want it to influence me. Do you think I will like this movie?
I hope you enjoy the movie. That's all I can say.
The movie is really great though despite its flaws and I'm gonna go watch it again!
Spoilers galore, in case you are like the chap above posting in here without seeing it.
This is a visually stunning, fast paced, extremely watchable film. ST09 prepared me for the lack of ‘Star Trek’ in it but to be fair, the heavy borrowing from WoK towards the end demonstrated a real respect for the original while making sure that this was a story different enough to keep everyone interested, with a credible ‘bad guy’ and even a 9/11 allegory thrown in.
But it’s a B+ for me. Why? Spock crying. FFS. What the actual space fuck?
By the ending of Wrath of Khan you’d accepted that Spock respected his buddy Kirk even if he didn’t understand or agree with him always.
In the new universe Spock appears barely to tolerate Captain Douche, and on the event of his life being saved in a volcano by his ‘friend’ cannot wait to get back to Starfleet and let them know that the poor Niburuians are too busy worshipping the great nacelled Kirk in the sky to bother with this evolving crap.
No apologies, no mitigation, just under the bus you go you Kibyashi-maru cheating, apple-eating, drink driver from Iowa.
So to go from this to Why Is Water Streaming Down My Face, does, in the words of Original McCoy, not compute.
Oh, and the Union Flag is flying upside down in 23rdC London. Presumably by then we have another coalition government.
Wait, so Marcus ORDERED Khan to blow up the facility? Marcus was in Section 31 but ordered his own people blown up or just the archive on top blown up? (I was never too sure if Section 31 itself was hit). So this act of terrorism was engineered by Marcus with Khan as his attack dog?
Remember that Spock more readily embraces his human half in this timeline, and that in the movie, where Spock explains toward the middle while they're in the shuttlecraft heading into Kronos, that when he mind-melded with Pike, he felt that fear, that terror, and that he didn't want to experience that, so he shut it out. By the end of the film, Spock has embraced those emotions to the point where they break through as Kirk is dying. Remember, too, that they have spent more time together since the first movie, and have become a more cohesive family.
Yes. This was all to set into motion a war between Starfleet and the Klingons, hence Admiral Marcus' ubership that was made solely for battle, as Scotty had stated. Khan had to do as Marcus said, or Marcus would destroy his "family."
Let's look at the chain of events:
* Khan destroys what turns out to be a Section 31 archive.
* Adm. Marcus requests a by-the-book meeting of top fleet officers (Captains and XOs of each ship) in a "secure" facility.
* Khan attacks the "secure" facility.
* Pike, along with others, dies.
* Kirk vows to find Khan.
* Khan's location is quickly pinpointed on Kronos.
* Adm. Marcus comes up with a plan to kill Khan, without trial, by using specialized torpedoes.
* Kirk and Co. warp toward Kronos but instead of stopping at the Klingon border and firing the special torps, they choose to rightly arrest Khan instead.
* The Warp core breaks down. Later it is discovered that Adm. Marcus had it sabotaged so that the Klingons would find the culprits for firing on Kronos.
* Adm. Marcus' ubership shows up "defend" Starfleet property from "aggressive" Klingons, so that a war ensues.
So chances are, in the next movie, the Klingons will be the villains in the plot as a result of what had happened on Kronos in this movie... How interesting.... But they were down on the planet without their uniforms as Kirk didn't want the Klingons to see them as starfleet officers. But somehow, I'm pretty sure they would find out they were from Starfleet.
I'm not sure. It's ambiguous enough that no one else need find out. As it was said while Kirk was piloting the craft, the area was abandoned. The only reason someone was there was that Spock stated they were spotted by a lone patrol ship.
So you kill those Klingons, and there are no witnesses. No one knows who the strange people in the unmarked vessel was, and life goes on. Of course, maybe there will be a war between Starfleet and the KDF.
You'll notice they didn't have anything that identified them as Starfleet. Even the handheld weapons weren't like Starfleet issue phasers, but appeared to be blasters of some kind.
The critics are not universally praising this thing.
Wired magazine just chimed in.
It just occured to me that there are a ton of lines, specifically from Cumberbatch, that were in the trailers but not in the film.
"And I...will have my vengeance."
"You are a pawn, Kirk."
"You think your world is safe. It is an illusion. Enjoy these final moments of peace."
"Your commanders have committed a crime that I cannot forgive."
"Have I got your attention now?" (Pretty sure he didn't say this, but possible)
"You have no idea what you have done."
Other lines from other characters:
Marcus: "Starfleet is not about vendetta, Kirk."
Kirk. "Maybe it should be, sir."
The delivery of Pike's lecture to Kirk was totally different, too.
Dunno about this bud. If anything his confrontation with emotion (Vulcan + PIke) would have made him more justified than before in eschewing feeling, for the reasons exactly outlined in the Mudd shuttle.
If the film makers want us to believe they have cemented a friendship between the two films there has to be some evidence of this. There wasn’t. Spock wasn’t the least bit perturbed by how his actions affected his so-called friend, nor curious as to whether the ends really justified the means. We’ve seen Spock learn the value of omission or white lies for a wider good. But this guy…
I am unclear as to what point Marcus lost control of Khan.
Also somewhat flabbergasted still that Khan was allowed into Section 31, one of the most dangerous men alive given access to the Federation's greatest secrets?
I, for one, am going to love seeing Bernd's head exploding over the next month.
I think it's all too Star Wars
Is that right? Marcus could have been easily killed and probably would have been if Kirk hadn't taken action at Daystrom. Didn't Khan say he killed the Section 31 people for revenge at killing Khans people allegedly. That doesn't explain why Khan went to Kronos though. Perhaps he thought he could get asylum there and Marcus saw it as his opportunity to kill two birds (3) with one stone to send the torpedoes there. Marcus didn't really know Kirk that well if he thought he was going to blindly obey orders though.
I meant ordered the London bomb. I'm going to assume that Marcus lost control of Khan by the time Khan blew up the meeting. But I'm still confused as to when he actually lost control of Khan if Marcus was behind the London bombing.
Well, in TOS, Dr Janet Wallace (Sarah Marshall, and English actress) is a former girlfriend of Kirk's, was once happily married to Theodore Wallace. In one scenario proposed for ST II, they were going to reprise Janet Wallace and show that she had had Kirk's son, David Wallace. They didn't go with concept that since it might seem that Kirk had had a fling with a married woman. So Carol Marcus was created instead.
So Janet Wallace and Carol Marcus are probably similar in age. (Marshall is two years younger than Shatner.) Perhaps they are sisters-in-law? Kirk had flings with both of them.
Janet's husband, Theodore, was said to be 26 years older than Janet, when he fell in love with her. Maybe Theo's first wife was Carol's mother?
THE NEW SHIPS ARE NO BIGGER THAN THE OLD ONES. THAT SHOT WHERE THE VENGEANCE'S ENGINEERING HULL WAS THE SIZE OF ALCATRAZ ISLAND WAS A MISTAKE. ALL THE SETS ARE MISTAKES. ALL THE CG ARE VFX ERRORS. THAT CARGO HOLD SCOTTY RAN ACROSS WAS REALLY THE SIZE OF A BROOM CLOSET.
Separate names with a comma.