5 Things Star Trek Fans Must Admit About The Film Franchise
- Thread starter dub
- Start date
- Status
East Side/West Side is a fantastic example, but it certainly wasn't the first or only show in the sixties to tackle social issues. The Defenders (1961-65) predates it by two years and is just as notable in that regard.
Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Well said.
Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
THIS!!!!
Marcus is certainly hubristic but unfortunately the effect of that is largely lost because he's just not a plausible character. Frankly, he's a cartoon villain. So that given that he's extravagantly insane, we can dismiss his hubris because he's mad. The way Marcus tortures the Enterprise for fun for example is evidence of someone who is very decisively insane and therefore we can take some comfort in that he's a man separate from us.
Hubris is a powerful device when it is disguised in otherwise credible figures that walk among us and we don't think twice before trusting. That's how one presents hubris in a way that truly unnerves the audience. Further, it should be a guy who has to wrestle with his conscience but then decides he needs to destroy Enterprise for a self deceptive "greater good"; now that's a character that's strong and well developed. Marcus, on the otherhand, is very pantomime. I might not mind but the filmmakers are capable of coming up strong dialogue for the heroes but the villains in these films, Nero, Kahn and Marcus are very weakly drawn when the opportunity and skill was present to flesh these characters out. That's a big reason as to why I'm disappointed in these films.
Hubris is a powerful device when it is disguised in otherwise credible figures that walk among us and we don't think twice before trusting. That's how one presents hubris in a way that truly unnerves the audience. Further, it should be a guy who has to wrestle with his conscience but then decides he needs to destroy Enterprise for a self deceptive "greater good"; now that's a character that's strong and well developed. Marcus, on the otherhand, is very pantomime. I might not mind but the filmmakers are capable of coming up strong dialogue for the heroes but the villains in these films, Nero, Kahn and Marcus are very weakly drawn when the opportunity and skill was present to flesh these characters out. That's a big reason as to why I'm disappointed in these films.
I feel like the villains are the most consistent problem of these films, which is why I thought the first film worked a lot better than the second.
Because, yes, Nero may be a bad villain, but he's there essentially to be The Guy that drives the chaos to throws together our crew (and conveniently establishes the Abrams universe in the process.) The heart of the film is with Kirk, Spock and company, and Nero's mostly useful as a foil to them, not really meant to be all that interesting by himself. And of course he's just Some Guy - if this film is like a comic book superhero origin movie, then he's the B-list or C-list bad guy they plop into those because they're saving the important ones for the sequels.
... which leads us unfortunately to Into Darkness, which has many of the same strengths as the first film - a well cast ensemble with natural camaraderie, well executed special effects sequences and fight scenes - but it really wants you to care about Benedict Cumberbatch's Khan, and I didn't.
Indeed and well written.Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Marcus may not have been the best villain Trek has ever seen (I personally reserve that title for Chang), but he felt timely. I recall shortly after seeing STID the news story about Senator Rand Paul making a 13 hour speech effectively arguing against drone strikes killing US citizens without trials. Which, was the thing that Marcus was asking Kirk to do. Marcus was a dark mirror of what Kirk could become.
Nero, likewise, was a dark mirror of what Spock could become. Driven mad by his emotions and the loss of his entire world, he became destructive, obsessive and enraged. He wasn't rationale, and couldn't be negotiated with. Like many other TOS villains, he was insane. But, this film was unique in that he felt almost sympathetic, even in his irrational ramblings, because what happened to him was a tragedy.
In both cases, the heroes could easily become the villains in the story.
Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Well, no.
Kirk slaughters innocent Klingons left and right on his way (in a deleted scene you can actually see that in the original cut Kirk shot first, and Khan rescued them later - that's why Khan seems to "stand still" on one single spot during the entire battle), and all of Admiral Marcus' crew is left dead in the end as a direct result of the action of our heroes.
The only reason Spock doesn't kill Khan is because he is needed "alive" to save Kirk (for whatever reason). Doesn't stop him (or Kirk before) from torturing (beating someone until he bleeds/breaking his right arm) of a surrending prisoner/someone who is on the ground (Khan).
Kirk doesn't kill Khan. Yes. But that's a matter of the circumstances, because he himself was dead at the moment. And killing him after he was detained would be straight up murder. That would have been too much even for our new "I have rage-issues"-Spock and "I shoot photon torpedoes at defeated Romulans"-Kirk.
I really like your points on how Kirk "becomes a better man", "breaks the circle of violence" and "refuses to kill". That would be nice messages. They are not supported by the movie, though. The film really IS just a summer action movie and nothing more. That you personally saw so many themes about humanity in it speaks volumes about yourself (in a positive way!) but not about the quality of the film...
If Marcus is an analogy of drone strikes then he's a poorly executed one. Obama is troubling because he's a sincere, congenial guy who has to deal with a quagmire left to him by Bush and drones is the tactically astute technology that arrives on his desk as the end result of simple technological innovation. With Marcus, it isn't long before he is revealed to be a fire breathing, scheming maniac who takes pleasure in killing his own people. Marcus is an implausible graphic novel villain and there's no real life counterpart to him.Indeed and well written.Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Marcus may not have been the best villain Trek has ever seen (I personally reserve that title for Chang), but he felt timely. I recall shortly after seeing STID the news story about Senator Rand Paul making a 13 hour speech effectively arguing against drone strikes killing US citizens without trials. Which, was the thing that Marcus was asking Kirk to do. Marcus was a dark mirror of what Kirk could become.
Nero, likewise, was a dark mirror of what Spock could become. Driven mad by his emotions and the loss of his entire world, he became destructive, obsessive and enraged. He wasn't rationale, and couldn't be negotiated with. Like many other TOS villains, he was insane. But, this film was unique in that he felt almost sympathetic, even in his irrational ramblings, because what happened to him was a tragedy.
In both cases, the heroes could easily become the villains in the story.
Most of the people I know in RL that saw the Nero film enjoyed it but noone nailed down what Nero was about. He was just some bizarre nut who killed Kirk's father and had an unfortunate penchant for blowing up planets for unclear reasons. I personally had to check out wiki after the film to know what on earth was going on with him. Nero struggles badly to feature among all the other things going on in this film. I'm always surprised to remember Bana played that role. Ach, they barely did anything with such a great actor!
If Marcus is an analogy of drone strikes then he's a poorly executed one. Obama is troubling because he's a sincere, congenial guy who has to deal with a quagmire left to him by Bush and drones is the tactically astute technology that arrives on his desk as the end result of simple technological innovation. With Marcus, it isn't long before he is revealed to be a fire breathing, scheming maniac who takes pleasure in killing his own people. Marcus is an implausible graphic novel villain and there's no real life counterpart to him.Indeed and well written.Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Marcus may not have been the best villain Trek has ever seen (I personally reserve that title for Chang), but he felt timely. I recall shortly after seeing STID the news story about Senator Rand Paul making a 13 hour speech effectively arguing against drone strikes killing US citizens without trials. Which, was the thing that Marcus was asking Kirk to do. Marcus was a dark mirror of what Kirk could become.
Nero, likewise, was a dark mirror of what Spock could become. Driven mad by his emotions and the loss of his entire world, he became destructive, obsessive and enraged. He wasn't rationale, and couldn't be negotiated with. Like many other TOS villains, he was insane. But, this film was unique in that he felt almost sympathetic, even in his irrational ramblings, because what happened to him was a tragedy.
In both cases, the heroes could easily become the villains in the story.
Most of the people I know in RL that saw the Nero film enjoyed it but noone nailed down what Nero was about. He was just some bizarre nut who killed Kirk's father and had an unfortunate penchant for blowing up planets for unclear reasons. I personally had to check out wiki after the film to know what on earth was going on with him. Nero struggles badly to feature among all the other things going on in this film. I'm always surprised to remember Bana played that role. Ach, they barely did anything with such a great actor!
This, I think, is a case of mileage may vary. I could write a whole psych paper on Nero, and love that character for what he is. He's psychotic. It's, to quote Spock, fascinating.
No, I don't think that Marcus is a one-to-one analogy for anything. I think he is a product of his times, not just an Obama stand in. He is paranoid, hawkish and manipulative.
Again, a definite YMMV, but I see Marcus as a consequence of paranoid behavior, gradually breaking with reality. Over-the-top? Sure, but lots of TOS villains were that way. If anything, I find Marcus, Khan and Nero more interesting than many TOS villains.
I get it, for sure, that doesn't mean I don't see value or depth to these characters or that I don't enjoy them.
I recently wrote a piece about Into Darkness.
Initially I dismissed the movie, because after looking at the recent vitriol surrounding the first trailer for Beyond, I decided to go back and take a look at Into Darkness.
Let me just say this, it's just my opinion and how I see the film now. The true villain of the piece, Admiral Marcus, to me, sounds a lot like current-day politicians who try to use fear in order to get the general public to support them.
"War is coming and who is going to lead us? You?! If I'm not in charge, our entire way of life is decimated!"
In the beginning, I was too caught up with the notion of Khan being used that I couldn't see anything else in it. I like the movie a lot. And for what I see Star Trek as, I think it works.
Initially I dismissed the movie, because after looking at the recent vitriol surrounding the first trailer for Beyond, I decided to go back and take a look at Into Darkness.
Let me just say this, it's just my opinion and how I see the film now. The true villain of the piece, Admiral Marcus, to me, sounds a lot like current-day politicians who try to use fear in order to get the general public to support them.
"War is coming and who is going to lead us? You?! If I'm not in charge, our entire way of life is decimated!"
In the beginning, I was too caught up with the notion of Khan being used that I couldn't see anything else in it. I like the movie a lot. And for what I see Star Trek as, I think it works.
And TOS was (for a time, literally) a cartoon show. Marcus is no more a believable character than Ronald Tracey, Garth of Izar, Harry Mudd or Trelane. In that regard, what herepresents is infinitely more important than who he is inside.
One could say that hubris is a form of insanity where one develops a self-image and a sense of competence that becomes unrealistic to the point of delusion.
Which Marcus basically was, before we found out he was insane.
But again, the movie wasn't about who Marcus was, not as an an antagonist or as a fully developed character. Marcus is the personification of jingoism and military interventionism; introspection is not really compatible with those traits, especially since someone capable of self-reflection wouldn't actually BE in Marcus' position in the first place. He is, instead, a simple-thinking man who believes that all of the universe' problems can be solved with violence.
You're assuming these characters were MEANT to be fleshed out. They weren't, however, because Star Trek's "deeper message" comes in the form of a morality play, not a melodrama. The writers did not (and have not) gone the extra mile to make the antagonists believable and sympathetic because the audience isn't SUPPOSED to sympathize with them; it is the heroes, not the villains, that the audience is meant to identify with and root for, and the identity of the villains is inextricable from the moral evil they represent.
This is the EXACT same formula TOS used for literally ALL of its antagonists. From Roger Corby to Janice Lester, it's rare and unusual for a character to actually have a great deal of depth beyond whatever it is they represent. The only real exception to this rule is the nameless Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", and then only because the moral failure he represents is that of his ambitious, warlike society.
Put that another way: in a TOS-based movie, the only way for Marcus to have the kind of character depth you're describing is for him to not actually BE the bad guy, but some poor sap who got caught up in the manipulation by the REAL bad guy. But that would require this entire war plan to be Khan's idea in the first place, and then KHAN would become the one-dimensional, single-minded avatar of militarism that Kirk must defeat in order to save the day. Arguably, that role is more fitting for Khan than it is for Marcus, but in STID Khan represents something a lot more ominous:
CONSEQUENCES
Exactly. He's not SUPPOSED to be sophisticated. Think "Moff Tarkin" not "Anakin Skywalker."
Ask those same people who Osama bin Laden was and tell me if their answers differ significantly.
Last edited:
To which part? Because the rest of your post seems entirely unrelated to anything I wrote.Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Well, no.
No, it's a matter of choosing not to fire those torpedoes like he was ordered to. That's the major plot point that defines the entire rest of the film, including Kirk's (and Marcus') subsequent choices.
Those weren't my points at all. Kirk made the decision he made because justice is not the same thing as revenge.
More importantly, getting revenge for Pike's murder was not worth the risk of dragging the Federation into an interstellar war.
And Kirk ISN'T the better man. This is the same James T. Kirk who 8 years from now would have stood in front of the Organians and insisted "We have the right!" to wage war against the Klingons; the same Kirk who, 25 years later, would have stood in front of Spock and hissed "Let them die!" This is the younger version of a Kirk who would have stolen a starship to help his friend and then blown it up to avenge his son.
Kirk is a man who gets shit done, to be sure. But morally speaking, this is about as good as he gets.
Not humanity. U.S. military policy.
I'm pretty sure i made that explicitly clear in my post.
Like, all of it.To which part? Because the rest of your post seems entirely unrelated to anything I wrote.Actually, it was a pretty clear, un-subtle indictment of U.S. military policy and an attempt to explore the law of Intended Consequences as to allowing one's sense of shock and outrage overwhelm otherwise well-established moral guidance. The fact that Khan murdered Captain Pike in cold blood and Kirk still goes out of his way to do the right thing isn't just a plot contrivance, it's actually the WHOLE POINT. Moreover, the fact that Marcus was counting on Kirk doing the impulsive/immoral thing -- and the fact that that immoral thing would have lead to the Enterprise's immediate destruction and certainly plunged the Federation into a war that would have cost billions of lives -- is the endgame.
Most importantly is the theme that Admiral Marcus is obviously playing with forces he cannot really control. He is trying to engineer a war with the Klingons; he is flirting with genetically engineered supermen, unaccountable black ops, and James Tiberius Kirk. Marcus is an avatar of Hubris: his sense of self-importance has gone to his head, which Khan gleefully crushes.
Kirk's speech on the Enterprise's re-christening stamped this point on the front cover; he might as well have stood up on the bridge and opined "I will not kill today!" (or even the Shatner-styled "I will not kill... today").
Yes, it's ham-fisted and un-subtle. Which is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from TOS.
Well, no.
Not because of his morality though, but because those torpedoes were fishy. Still bent on acting out revenge though.
(That's the part about "humanity" I was talking about a bit later)
Well, duh! Still a major leap in intelligence for nuKirk...
So THAT'S were his character development over two movies went?
Naw, man. Kirk's the guy who reads the constitution to aliens. The original series is cheesy as hell, but you never see him outright kill somebody. Hell, even during war he uses phasers on stun (the klingon episode with the Organians, Errand of Mercy(?)). Or, like any real soldiers would do, offers help to his defeated enemy, to save their lives (Balance of Terror, Journey to Babel, literally any other episode where the Enterprise fights another starship). That's a form of humanism the new Trek is seriously missing...
By tinfoil-hat, 9/11-truther Bob Orci? Well, what a surprise!
Not entirely. He did it because his orders were illegal, and immoral, and potentially dangerous to the entire Federation.
Gary Mitchell will be very pleased to hear that.
So will Kruge.
OTOH, Kirk didn't "outright kill" anyone in STID either, so this isn't much of a point.
Yeah, him.
Actually some of those TOS characters are fleshed out to my satisfaction in the way that Marcus isn't. A catalyst is depicted that drives Garth insane. That's I'll I'm asking for. Marcus on the other hand is a one dimensional figure and there's no explanation for his roaring insanity. Marcus has none of the substance of anyone within or without Star Trek. He's a badly constructed villain just like you get with many films and some dud Trek episodes.
But even allowing your point on TOS's villains why do you use TOS as some kind of metric for quality in contemporary cinema? Just because there's lackadaisical stuff in 60's TOS doesn't mean you forgive the lackadaisical stuff that is delivered to us on-screen in contemporary terms. I didn't give Joel Schumacher's dud Batman movie a pass because there was zany stuff in Adam West's Batman.
A
Amaris
Guest
For me, that moment was the defining one for Marcus. He's the hero, the savior, and he's going to drag everyone into a war that has to be fought hard and won. At least, that's how he sees it in his mind. He's the hero.
I love that kind of thing!
Depicted? They give this nonsense explanation about how the Antosians taught him shapeshifting abilities and that somehow made him loose his mind. That's backstory, not "depiction." And that for a story where curing Garth's madness is the whole reason why they beamed down to this planet in the first place.
Really? I thought he explained it pretty clearly:
"War with the Klingons is inevitable. Since initial contact they've conquered and enslaved two planets that we know of, they've fired on our ships half a dozen times... they are coming our way."
And later:
"War is coming and who is gonna lead us? You?! If I'm not in charge, our whole way of life is decimated!"
I didn't think he was being subtle. He's a fanatic, obsessed with the Klingons, obsessed with "security," drunk with power and Hubris. You could write a NOVEL about how he got to be that way, but the short version is right there on the tin.
Because there's nothing wrong with TOS, and it doesn't phase me that the reboot films use TOS' simplistic approach to villains.
This entire conversation feels like debating "The Wizard of Oz" with you complaining "The dialog in this film is so unrealistic! All I'm asking for is some explanation for why they suddenly start discussing their problems through song! Did a wizard do it? Is it a spell? This is absurd!"
That's only because Schumacher's "batman" was marketed as a sequel to two respectable Tim Burton films, in addition to not being funny. People actually LIKED the previous installments and responded to what followed with "What the FUCK am I watching?"
Star Trek has the exact opposite problem: the previous three films bent over backwards, forwards and sideways to give the villains (even the Borg... Jesus, the FUCKING BORG!) plausible villainy motivations around which they could twirl their mustaches and hatch their insidious evil plot. I again note the complete lack of comparison to any of those films, and I ask this very frank question:
Was Marcus more believable than the Borg Queen?
Was Marcus more believable than Ruafo?
Was Marcus more believable than Shinzon? (omg I can't even ask this one with a straight face
)There's something to be said for erring on the side of simplicity, IMO.
- Status
Similar threads
