My Gripes with STID!

[CorporalCaptain]

You mean how TWOK Khan was a one-dimensional thinker who risked his own freedom and that of his followers just to get some silly revenge on Kirk that cost him his life and the life of said followers? Instead of STID Khan who cared about his followers and would do anything to save them? Yeah, that's pretty lame all right.

I wasn't talking about the writing/storyline. I was talking about casting. Still, I can't believe you're dissing WOK...

TWOK may be my favorite Trek film, but so what? Dukhat has a perfectly fair criticism of TWOK, one among many.

 

[BillJ]

There isn't a single Trek episode or movie that is flawless.

 

[Lance]

There isn't a single Trek episode or movie that is flawless.

I agree. I love them *all* on some level, but they all have things that could've been done better as well.

I think the flaws become more accute in a movie because there's a lot more riding on it being a success. I know a lot of people (myself included) that feel Star Trek: Insurrection was a more than worthy Star Trek story in itself, but just felt it was wrong as a movie. That kind of sums up my feeling. Whereas on TV we can judge episodes individually and discuss their strengths and flaws as a part of a collective 'whole', when it comes to the movies those strengths and flaws tend to be magnified to each individual movie, to the point where they are thrown around in internet discussions as make-or-break propositions. People are more passionate when they discuss movies. STID is a perfect example, where all sides have got legitimate arguments as to its merits and flaws. It's a movie whose recipe consists of almost equal amounts of both cream and piss.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I wonder how this thread would look like if it was "My gropes with STid"

We might have some interesting stories to tell....

 

[JWPlatt]

There isn't a single [insert noun here] that is flawless.

Trite truism at its finest that adds flavor to any discussion.

 

[BillJ]

There isn't a single [insert noun here] that is flawless.

Trite truism at its finest that adds flavor to any discussion.

Just a response to people that think it's wrong to criticize a movie. The flaws can end up making something special. The Wrath of Khan is an incredibly entertaining movie, but it has a ton of flaws. Star Trek Into Darkness is the same.

 

[Mudd]

You mean how TWOK Khan was a one-dimensional thinker who risked his own freedom and that of his followers just to get some silly revenge on Kirk that cost him his life and the life of said followers? Instead of STID Khan who cared about his followers and would do anything to save them? Yeah, that's pretty lame all right.

I wasn't talking about the writing/storyline. I was talking about casting. Still, I can't believe you're dissing WOK...

You don't think there's going to be a range of opinions about a Star Trek movie on a Trek forum?

 

[Woulfe]

In the U.S. and Canada, grips are lighting and rigging technicians in the filmmaking and video production industries. They constitute their own department on a film set and are directed by a key grip. Grips have two main functions. The first is to work closely with the camera department to provide camera support, especially if the camera is mounted to a dolly, crane, or in an unusual position, such as the top of a ladder. Some grips may specialize in operating camera dollies or camera cranes. The second main function of grips is to work closely with the electrical department to create lighting set-ups necessary for a shot under the direction of the Director of Photography.

Oh wait, GRIPES, not Grips, nevermind....

;-)

 

[BigJake]

Just a response to people that think it's wrong to criticize a movie.

You know... there is perhaps a certain irony in your saying that.

Anyway, on TWOK Khan:

You mean how TWOK Khan was a one-dimensional thinker who risked his own freedom and that of his followers just to get some silly revenge on Kirk that cost him his life and the life of said followers? Instead of STID Khan who cared about his followers and would do anything to save them?

TWOK Khan was a perfectly credible and psychologically believable Ahab analogue, that's his plot and his arc (one so satisfying that they kept going back to it for later Trek films, never as convincingly IMO) and it's visibly driving every frame of the performance, besides being reflected in everything from his character design to his environment. A couple minutes of exposition from Khan and Chekhov is all it takes to establish firmly and then we're away. Far as I'm concerned that's pretty darned good villain design; he's not just designed to be a robotic interchangeable Badass but an actual character, a once-great man driven into the abyss of madness and folly, and it works.

By contrast, pretty much everything about CumberKhan has to be explained in expository dialogue -- in particular the part where he's a super-genius weapons designer who stashes "his family" in explosive devices Because of Reasons; the part where NimoySpock shows up to explain to the audience that Khan is a total super-baddie just in case they might not have seen TWOK -- and then is belied or confused by his actions (MontalKhan was ruthless but had discernible goals and reasons for his actions, CumberKhan turns mustache-twirler pretty much for no discernible reason other than that the plot needs him to).

I can see why someone would be incredulous at the notion of your trying to make like MontalKhan somehow comes out the poorer in that comparison. I certainly don't buy that for a second.

 

[fireproof78]

You mean how TWOK Khan was a one-dimensional thinker who risked his own freedom and that of his followers just to get some silly revenge on Kirk that cost him his life and the life of said followers? Instead of STID Khan who cared about his followers and would do anything to save them? Yeah, that's pretty lame all right.

I wasn't talking about the writing/storyline. I was talking about casting. Still, I can't believe you're dissing WOK...

You don't think there's going to be a range of opinions about a Star Trek movie on a Trek forum?

Well, it is known that TWOK is the greatest Trek film, and Khan is the greatest Trek villain. I think I read that on an Internet poll somewhere

In all seriousness, and I think I've posted about this elsewhere, but I think that TWOK is a fine film, but far from my favorite film. I think that Montalban delivers a fine performance as Khan but I agree about the one-dimensional note of the character. This was one of GR's (many) complaints about the script. Space Seed had a lot more subtle moments, where Khan was playing dumb as to his true nature, as well as the moments of being more superior and having his own freak out moments.

To that end, one of the reasons I like Cumberbatch is because he delivers such a varied performance, from very small and subtle to over the top psychotic. One, I think it is very Trek, and two, I think it fits the character.

If del Toro had the role, I wonder if we would still be having this discussion.

 

[Mudd]

FWIW, TWOK is one of my three favorite Trek films.

 

[Amaris]

There isn't a single Trek episode or movie that is flawless.

I agree. I love them *all* on some level, but they all have things that could've been done better as well.

I think the flaws become more accute in a movie because there's a lot more riding on it being a success. I know a lot of people (myself included) that feel Star Trek: Insurrection was a more than worthy Star Trek story in itself, but just felt it was wrong as a movie. That kind of sums up my feeling. Whereas on TV we can judge episodes individually and discuss their strengths and flaws as a part of a collective 'whole', when it comes to the movies those strengths and flaws tend to be magnified to each individual movie, to the point where they are thrown around in internet discussions as make-or-break propositions. People are more passionate when they discuss movies. STID is a perfect example, where all sides have got legitimate arguments as to its merits and flaws. It's a movie whose recipe consists of almost equal amounts of both cream and piss.

I think what gets people is this expectation that a movie studio has given them a whole bunch of money, and two hours to play with, and with Insurrection, we get a movie that seems more fit to be a season two-parter, rather than a major film. On its own, it's okay, but put in that context, it falls short. All my opinion, of course.

 

[kirkfan]

How come the special effect guys couldn't even let us see the crushing of the guy's skull? It's child's play with the means they have nowadays.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

How come the special effect guys couldn't even let us see the crushing of the guy's skull? It's child's play with the means they have nowadays.

That wasn't a technical or budget issue, it was a "not wanting to show skull crushing in Star Trek and get an R-rating" issue, and I'm glad they didn't. There are plenty of horror movies out there to find skull crushing in, or you can take a scenic drive down any road in Los Angeles and find nothing but skulls to crush, according to the Terminator films.

 

[kirkfan]

How come the special effect guys couldn't even let us see the crushing of the guy's skull? It's child's play with the means they have nowadays.

That wasn't a technical or budget issue, it was a "not wanting to show skull crushing in Star Trek and get an R-rating" issue, and I'm glad they didn't. There are plenty of horror movies out there to find skull crushing in, or you can take a scenic drive down any road in Los Angeles and find nothing but skulls to crush, according to the Terminator films.

I just don't like it when the average viewer is treated like a retarded child. If it's to make us "guess" things then a book would be more than enough. Movies are supposed to show things not hide them from us. That's a general gripe of mine.
I like the French movies where when a naked person moves across a room for some non sexual reason. The camera does't make special contortions to never show that person's body parts or pieces of furniture are not conveniently placed so that they hide them from us. That's called realistic filming and it means not taking your audience for a bunch of imbeciles. I don't know if I made my point but I certainly hope so.

 

[Nerys Myk]

How come the special effect guys couldn't even let us see the crushing of the guy's skull? It's child's play with the means they have nowadays.

That wasn't a technical or budget issue, it was a "not wanting to show skull crushing in Star Trek and get an R-rating" issue, and I'm glad they didn't. There are plenty of horror movies out there to find skull crushing in, or you can take a scenic drive down any road in Los Angeles and find nothing but skulls to crush, according to the Terminator films.

I just don't like it when the average viewer is treated like a retarded child. If it's to make us "guess" things then a book would be more than enough. Movies are supposed to show things not hide them from us. That's a general gripe of mine.
I like the French movies where when a naked person moves across a room for some non sexual reason. The camera does't make special contortions to never show that person's body parts or pieces of furniture are not conveniently placed so that they hide them from us. That's called realistic filming and it means not taking your audience for a bunch of imbeciles. I don't know if I made my point but I certainly hope so.

I think you misunderstand why some things are not shown. Sometimes less is more. IIRC we don't see the monster in Frankenstein until half way through the film. His shadow is used to tease us and build anticipation. or something happens off camera to let our imagination fill in the gaps more graphically than seeing what happens
That's clever filmmaking. In your graphic gore not so much.

 

[BillJ]

I just don't like it when the average viewer is treated like a retarded child. If it's to make us "guess" things then a book would be more than enough. Movies are supposed to show things not hide them from us. That's a general gripe of mine.

I don't think it's about treating the viewer like a "retarded child". The scene worked beautifully in my opinion. Sometimes it's about knowing your audience. The crunch and the looks of horror on Carol Marcus' and Kirk's faces sell the idea without needing a drop of blood to be present.

It is one of my favorite scenes from over seven-hundred hours of Star Trek.

 

[kirkfan]

That wasn't a technical or budget issue, it was a "not wanting to show skull crushing in Star Trek and get an R-rating" issue, and I'm glad they didn't. There are plenty of horror movies out there to find skull crushing in, or you can take a scenic drive down any road in Los Angeles and find nothing but skulls to crush, according to the Terminator films.

I just don't like it when the average viewer is treated like a retarded child. If it's to make us "guess" things then a book would be more than enough. Movies are supposed to show things not hide them from us. That's a general gripe of mine.
I like the French movies where when a naked person moves across a room for some non sexual reason. The camera does't make special contortions to never show that person's body parts or pieces of furniture are not conveniently placed so that they hide them from us. That's called realistic filming and it means not taking your audience for a bunch of imbeciles. I don't know if I made my point but I certainly hope so.

I think you misunderstand why some things are not shown. Sometimes less is more. IIRC we don't see the monster in Frankenstein until half way through the film. His shadow is used to tease us and build anticipation. or something happens off camera to let our imagination fill in the gaps more graphically than seeing what happens
That's clever filmmaking. In your graphic gore not so much.

I am sorry but this is not Jean-Luc Godard or Abel Gance whose movies I know quite well btw, this is some shitty Startrek movie that can't even rival with an average episode of any of the series. Not showing the scene is just inept, IMO that is.

 

[BillJ]

I am sorry but this is not Jean-Luc Godard or Abel Gance whose movies I know quite well btw, this is some shitty Startrek movie that can't even rival with an average episode of any of the series. Not showing the scene is just inept, IMO that is.

How exactly is it inept? Studios know that PG-13 rated films generally perform better than R-rated films. Showing a skull being crushed in the manner Khan did would earn the film an R-rating.

Then people would be complaining about how Abrams destroyed Star Trek by making it R-rated and driving down ticket sales.

 

[kirkfan]

I just don't like it when the average viewer is treated like a retarded child. If it's to make us "guess" things then a book would be more than enough. Movies are supposed to show things not hide them from us. That's a general gripe of mine.

I don't think it's about treating the viewer like a "retarded child". The scene worked beautifully in my opinion. Sometimes it's about knowing your audience. The crunch and the looks of horror on Carol Marcus' and Kirk's faces sell the idea without needing a drop of blood to be present.

It is one of my favorite scenes from over seven-hundred hours of Star Trek.

You'll forgive me if I don't share your appreciation of the acting abilities of the bimbo du jour. As for Kirk he was rather stiff in that scene as he's most of the time in that movie. The only thing he does well is the look of swagger when he gets beat up.