Spoilers Andor - Season 2
- Thread starter Fuddles
- Start date
Somehow I doubt that was the pitch.Anyone who said "Now that we've rebooted the classic Star Trek crew, let's have their second-ever adventure be a Wrath of Khan remake, starring a white dude so we can pretend that's not what it is right up until the moment it's released!" was definitely not the right person for the job.
Pitching STID in the development stages would probably have been a good idea. 
This was STID's pitch:
Somehow I doubt that was the pitch.
Unless there's documentation to the contrary, Occam's Razor would suggest that it was.
Partly. I'm sure khan was there. The rest, not so much,Unless there's documentation to the contrary, Occam's Razor would suggest that it was.
According to one book, the writers had an idea of Khan, then wrote the script without Khan to see if the story still worked, then decided to add him back in.
In my opinion, enjoyer of Into Darkness as I am, Khan was a mistake. The comparison was inevitable, the secrecy campaign stupid, and actually took a little away from the film's messaging, which I found good.
The other, unfortunate part, was the repeating of elements from 09 that were also detracting.
However, thematically it's a good film, and one I enjoy quite a lot.
I was working at a Navy office at the time, and had a model of the Enterprise (the '09 version, because it was cheapest) on my desk. I'd cooled on that movie since it came out, so I wasn't particularly stoked for Into Darkness, and I found the "Is Cumberbatch Khan or not?!" speculation tiresome rather than intriguing. So, I didn't go on opening weekend, but I didn't seek out spoilers, either.
That Monday, my boss came in all jazzed up, and asked me if I'd seen it. When I said no, he replied, "Oh, it's great! Just wait until you figure out who the bad guy is!" And with that, he walked off, rubbing his hands mischievously, confident that he hadn't spoiled the movie. I just say there and thought "Okay, it's Khan then, whoopee."
I also remember the hosts of the IGN Movies podcast saying he was Khan on the episode that dropped that same week (I think? Or the week after, at the latest) without a spoiler warning. They then explained they weren't bothering with a spoiler warning because it made jack squat difference to the movie itself, and because the reveal had been so widely and publicly speculated about for so long that there was zero element of surprise for us listeners either way. I imagine some were peeved, but I respected them for refusing to play the movie's stupid game past that first weekend.
When I finally had the chance to see it in theaters, I picked Fast & Furious 6 instead, and, while I maintain that that's a lesser Fast movie, I still hold I made the right choice.
And then the director of it skipped out on his ongoing Fast duties for a few years to do a Trek movie.When I finally had the chance to see it in theaters, I picked Fast & Furious 6 instead, and, while I maintain that that's a lesser Fast movie, I still hold I made the right choice.
A good Trek movie. 
Due to the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth I saw on various forums I was on, I did not watch it immediately. My mother-in-law offered to take me and my sister-in-law for my birthday and I took it. After watching a Fast movie I still maintain I made the right choice.When I finally had the chance to see it in theaters, I picked Fast & Furious 6 instead, and, while I maintain that that's a lesser Fast movie, I still hold I made the right choice.
On another forum, one member was bemoaning the whole situation. I opted to see it for myself and actually enjoyed it. And, well, I find it kind fine that Khan is there. But, then, I don't play the stupid comparison game with TWOK, which has plagued Star Trek movies since TSFS.
No, he chose the one that made the most narrative sense. Having Luke go on a "super duper secret mission" to find some bullshit magical hail mary that didn't work, only then to become grumpy and bitter would be a completely useless, unnecessary stutter step that would accomplish nothing.1) The WBW was introduced after TLJ premiered, so, whatever, man.
2) Please note that I never said I wanted Luke to succeed at rewriting the past. Instead, I think it could have been a ideal story, given the framework of TFA, for him have gone off in search of a Hail Mary fix to everything (be it time travel, a squad of hibernating Jedi, an anti-Sith weapon, whatever), but for that effort to have failed, and/or proven to be a completely false hope, leaving him stranded in the process. In his solitude, he could still have become a tired, grumpy old man, and thus been reluctant to train Rey (which I do think the setup of TFA pretty much demanded) without making him an intentional deserter from his family and galaxy. I think this would have been the best outcome from a pretty bad setup... but Johnson chose the worst possible (backstory) path instead.
On this, we are in complete agreement.Anyone who said "Now that we've rebooted the classic Star Trek crew, let's have their second-ever adventure be a Wrath of Khan remake, starring a white dude so we can pretend that's not what it is right up until the moment it's released!" was definitely not the right person for the job.
But they didn't quit, as Luke did. They had only temporarily quit for twenty years while they waited for Luke and/or Leia to grow up to challenge the Emperor.
Which, let's face it, was a pretty terrible plan.
If I had used the time I spent watching Into Darkness staring instead into a bus station toilet, I would have made the right choice.When I finally had the chance to see it in theaters, I picked Fast & Furious 6 instead, and, while I maintain that that's a lesser Fast movie, I still hold I made the right choice.
A mediocre Trek movie but at least one vastly superior to the two that came before it.A good Trek movie.
