Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
You didn't answer the question?
TFF and NEM were both exceedingly dumb - at least as dumb as Trek09, if not more. (The other two you mention were dumb-ish, but in a way that could be ... suppressed or endured.) However, we had non-dumb Trek on TV when they hit theatres. I can go to McDonalds's once a month when I get to eat home-cooked food the rest of the time.
Yes, and I love both old and new Who. I may love Hartnell and Tom Baker a little more than all the others, but everybody has favorites.
Doesn't that kind of prove that I'm pro-change? My dislike of JJTrek doesn't mean I want franchises to stagnate. Go with the flow, but have faith in the audience's intelligence.
Dude, I said that Damon Lindelof could write his way out of anything, not that he was a good writer.
He can also pull a baboon out of Eleanor Roosevelt's ass, but that's another story: see, Prometheus.
Even so, there is a lot of 'bad writing,' there too. Shit there is even outright sexism and racism in one of the episodes. Code of Honor.
Deception is the game, Colonel Green.
I dunno. As has been said many times on these boards, Khan is the most memorable and marketable villain in Trek. It's a stretch to say he's Trek's Joker, but no one Klingon (who are Trek's Joker in aggregate) ever rose to his stature.
In TWOK, this most brilliant and brutal of foes comes across Kirk at a crossroads in his life. The conflict comes when Kirk is at a weak point, and the stakes are high (Genesis). His command has been taken away from him. He's feeling his age; he's in a crisis of confidence. Early on, Khan plays on that to his advantage, but Kirk gains momentum in the movie, and it ends with him rejuvinated and back to his old self.
In STID, the most brilliant and brutal of foes comes across Kirk at a crossroads in his life. The conflict comes when Kirk is at a weak point, and the stakes are high (war). His command has been taken away from him. He's feeling his age; he's in a crisis of confidence. Early on, Khan plays on those weaknesses, but Kirk grows in the movie and it ends with him becoming a more complete leader and on the path to greatness.
In an odd way, Khan is a tonic for both Kirks. That does kind of make him Kirk's Joker. Kirk needed Khan both times. Both times he was reborn into the full hero he is (maybe even literally in STID). I kind of like that.
Every hero needs a nemesis (gah, I went and did it).
It's like Bond fans complaining about the different Blofelds. God forbid.
I thought there was a major misstep with the McGann "Doctor Who" telemovie? I recall fans being aghast that he shared a kiss with his companion.
A character who conveniently changes looks, clothes, age and personality with each transformation.
No one? The longevity of "Who" is the main reason I've avoided watching it.
Here's the thing: Abrams and his gang of writers made this movie for the mass audience, not for us. In doing so, they decided to retell the Khan story.
Every fanboi I've seen is upset. Abrams & Co. don't give a shit that you're upset. They wanted to use Khan and they cast Cumby because he guarantees good gate.
So cut the crap. This is about money and Paramount making a return on their investment in Bad Robot. Enough of the Sheeple will see this film and it will work for them for Paramount to greenlight a third film with Cumby back as the Khanster.
We probably haven't even seen Khan's wrath yet
That's an outstanding way to look at it, and if people cannot see that Abrams put a lot of thought and depth into this film they are simply blind to it or more likely just simply don't like Abrams style and will search for anything to complain about.
Meh. The vast majority of fanbois will line up at the box office shrieking "Take my money! Take it!"
Hell, the vast majority of fans here on TrekBBS are excited about the movie.
In the third movie, Khan will kick some awesome ass.
Most of the people who bitched about the last movie liked it when they ACTUALLY SAW THE DAMNED MOVIE.
And screw the fanbois.
He will return as the Borg King.
You do realize that all of Star Trek was done to make money, right?
Making some sort of appeal that this film's profit motives are different than in the past is pretty clueless.
As far as the use of Khan goes, it's pretty canny. Abrams and his writing team get to use the most recognized antagonist in the Trek pantheon in their own sandbox. They get the benefit of recognition and the freedom to craft their own story. I'm very excited to see how Khan plays out in this very different timeline.
In fact, DalekJim loved it.
Burger King tie in.
I'm a fanboi, I've seen it - and I'm not upset.
I was upset by ST V, and disappointed by "Generations" and "Nemesis". And much of "Voyager".
"Star Trek Into Darkness" was the most fun I've had in a cinema since... "Star Trek (2009)".
Question to someone that saw the film: Is there an over use of Shakespeare quotes in the film? Are there any?
Separate names with a comma.