Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[Set Harth]

Remember when Star Wars(1977) said that Obi-Wan Kenobi fought in the Clone Wars, but then The Empire Strikes Back(1980) and Return of the Jedi(1983) failed to mention this fact all over again, and then no one ever said, "Because TESB and ROTJ didn't say that Obi-Wan fought in the Clone Wars, it's not true anymore"?

 

[Agenda]

I do suspect that some of those currently willing to rate STID as worse than TFF will mellow out in due course.

Anyone who thinks STID is a worse film than TFF needs to have their head examined.

Now, now. It's just a matter of personal preferences.

I'm not a big fan of TFF but I think it's actually more true to the characters and their relationships, especially the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad.

 

[Search4]

The problem with the Khan character in STID has little to do with race or being a Sikh or not. The problem is that, other than the name and the genetic engineering aspect, there is nothing recognizable about Khan in Benedict Cumberbatch's performance - or the way he was written.

Montalban played a handsome character who put on a charming performance as Khan, even if he was a dangerous psychopath. Cumberbatch's Khan is just a dangerous psychopath. With all due respect, he's not nearly as handsome and he's nearly not charming.

It's like he was cast as some different character altogether, then, right before shooting began, somebody handed him a new script that had Khan in it and he didn't have the time or inclination to actually change his performance to suit that character.

Of course, one can say that the character was changed in this reality beyond recognition. And if you're good with that, so be it. But for me, it makes it difficult to suspend my disbelief whatsoever.

Montalban's Khan is right out of the deep freeze.

Real world thought experiment: Adolf Hitler is woken up. Would he look the same and be highly recognizable? If you saw him casually might you say "holy mackeral, that's..."?

This society can make a human appear as a Romulan. Plastic surgery or the equivalent is routine. Ferengis talk English due to invisible technology. The FIRST thing i would do, if i wanted an instantly recognizable face to be useful, is alter it beyond recognition. The second thing would be to change the voice tonality.

OK, your mileage may vary, but Marcus had a year so turn "Khan" into Harrison and i think altering his appearance, drastically, would be expected.

 

[Belz...]

It's a question of semantics: what you call a misguided homage, I call a rip-off.

I guess it depends on your own boundaries. I don't think it's nearly close enough to the original to be called a rip-off. Also, don't we usually use that term to mean that someone stole an idea from someone else, and if so, how can this happen within a franchise ? For instance, can someone rip themselves off ?

I would have thought the point was obvious: if source A presents certain information, but source B does not ( though it also does not contradict it ), while sources A and B are in the same continuity, source B's failure to provide the information does not somehow make the information non-canonical. It does not have to be presented over and over again in each successive piece of canon in order to be considered valid.

OK but I don't see how this relates to what I said.

 

[JarodRussell]

Anyone who thinks STID is a worse film than TFF needs to have their head examined.

Now, now. It's just a matter of personal preferences.

I'm not a big fan of TFF but I think it's actually more true to the characters and their relationships, especially the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad.

TFF is a really good TOS episode.

 

[BillJ]

The Final Frontier is much like Nemesis, when you're watching it you see glimpses of a good movie fighting to get out.

 

[Timewalker]

I don't see many non-Trek fans, actually none, that discuss any Trek movies.

Why should they? There's a hell of a lot of comics, TV shows, movies, etc. that people around here expect me to know about and discuss (ie. Greg Cox' constant references to Batman, Sherlock Holmes, among others). He seems to expect people to understand and be able to follow references to those, but the simple fact is that not everyone here is a fan of everything. Except in the most general terms, I don't discuss those series because I've seen little/nothing of them, I'm not a fan of them, I'm not interested in them at all.

So why expect non-ST fans to discuss Star Trek?

The other extreme position says, "Absolutely nothing in the film is a ripoff of TWOK!"

I don't consider the assertion that "Absolutely nothing in STID is a rip-off of TWOK" to be an extreme position. I consider it to be a statement of fact. One reason that I do, among others, is that TWOK and STID, both being Star Trek films, are two films in the same series. That alone makes it erroneous to characterize any intentional copying of elements from the former into the latter as a rip-off. The implication of the use of the term rip-off is that some sort of theft has occurred. That's simply impossible in this case.

Legal theft? No.

Creative theft? Dramatic theft? Indication of lazy writing? Yeah, I'd say so. And before somebody goes off on a "You must be a Berman fan" rant again, I wasn't impressed with "The Naked Now," either.

Can't we just say that using Khan like they did in STID was a mistake?

Well I certainly wouldn't have used him at all, and would've used him differently, myself. Can't say it was a mistake, however. Just different from what I would have expected.

You wouldn't have used him at all, but you would have used him differently. But if you wouldn't have used him at all, how could you have used him...

Norman, coordinate.

 

[BillJ]

So why expect non-ST fans to discuss Star Trek?

Part of the discussion was about Into Darkness falling out of favor with general audiences. My point was that pretty much all of the Trek films are of no interest to general audiences once they see it on home video or at the theater. So using general audiences long term interest as a barometer of quality really isn't useful.

General audiences watch something then move on whether they liked it or not.

 

[JWPlatt]

Belz means if Lindelof, obviously mentally unbalanced, held a gun to his head and forced him to use Khan, he would have written Khan differently. But I doubt you misunderstood that anyway...

 

[CorporalClegg]

Creative theft? Dramatic theft? Indication of lazy writing? Yeah, I'd say so.

It's not theft. "Theft," "ripoff," or whatever the word-of-the-day is implies a conscious intent to do harm.

This is why people gang up on the "haters." No one gives two shits that people don't like the film. But when they use such obvious loaded language to skew the discussion in their favor, it becomes very hard to take them seriously.

No one is forcing anyone to like the film, but don't piss on the fans' cornflakes either.

 

[BillJ]

...but don't piss on the fans' cornflakes either.

It's obviously all some people have left. Trek took a turn they didn't like so they need to make everyone as miserable as they are.

 

[Balrog]

I prefer cornflakes with no urine, please.

 

[Sindatur]

I prefer cornflakes with no urine, please.

Yea, they're much better with milk

 

[M'Sharak]

Two kinds of responses to posts by others - the first is a response to the substance of the post, and poses a question:

Can't we just say that using Khan like they did in STID was a mistake?

Well I certainly wouldn't have used him at all, and would've used him differently, myself. Can't say it was a mistake, however. Just different from what I would have expected.

You wouldn't have used him at all, but you would have used him differently. But if you wouldn't have used him at all, how could you have used him...

Norman, coordinate.

This is fine. Sarcastic, but fine.

The second attempts to put words into the mouth of one poster and (in the "doubt you misunderstood" part) takes a roundabout swipe at another:

Belz means if Lindelof, obviously mentally unbalanced, held a gun to his head and forced him to use Khan, he would have written Khan differently. But I doubt you misunderstood that anyway...

This is not fine. Please don't do that. You should address your remarks to the content of the post(s), and avoid attacking the poster(s).

...but don't piss on the fans' cornflakes either.

It's obviously all some people have left. Trek took a turn they didn't like so they need to make everyone as miserable as they are.

Here, too - let's aim for "post, not poster(s)."

 

[Timewalker]

So why expect non-ST fans to discuss Star Trek?

Part of the discussion was about Into Darkness falling out of favor with general audiences. My point was that pretty much all of the Trek films are of no interest to general audiences once they see it on home video or at the theater. So using general audiences long term interest as a barometer of quality really isn't useful.

General audiences watch something then move on whether they liked it or not.

But if they liked it, wouldn't they be more apt to check out other Trek movies, TV shows, books, or comics?

I have to admit to being out of touch with what typical movie-goers do. I haven't casually gone to see a movie (as in not knowing whether or not I'd like it) since last century. Happily that one turned out to be Toy Story 2; I discovered I enjoyed it, and have since seen some of the other Toy Story stuff.

Belz means if Lindelof, obviously mentally unbalanced, held a gun to his head and forced him to use Khan, he would have written Khan differently. But I doubt you misunderstood that anyway...

Belz' post was unclear, and it would be nice if you refrained from pretending you understood what I meant by my post.

Creative theft? Dramatic theft? Indication of lazy writing? Yeah, I'd say so.

It's not theft. "Theft," "ripoff," or whatever the word-of-the-day is implies a conscious intent to do harm.

This is why people gang up on the "haters." No one gives two shits that people don't like the film. But when they use such obvious loaded language to skew the discussion in their favor, it becomes very hard to take them seriously.

No one is forcing anyone to like the film, but don't piss on the fans' cornflakes either.

Oh, goody - finally somebody admits to ganging up on people who dislike the Abrams movies.

Y'know, the other day I saw a post where somebody bitched that the Crow TV series wasn't like the movie. I thought about writing a post that explains why the TV series is just as wonderful in its own way as the movie was, and so on... but opted not to feed another potential argument. The person who didn't like it is entitled to his opinion. I'm not going to rant and scream or mock him because his opinion doesn't agree with mine.

I'm entitled to my opinion about the nuTrek movies. I don't care if you love it, hate it, or something inbetween.

It does become hard to take seriously all the handwaving and excuses people come up with, though, to gloss over the problems the movies have, and the FACT that an iconic scene and some iconic dialogue was lifted from another movie. I don't give a damn if it's the same franchise. It's lazy, and makes me wonder if these people are capable of writing original material.

EDIT: @M'Sharak: I hadn't noticed your post before I posted the above.

 

[BillJ]

It does become hard to take seriously all the handwaving and excuses people come up with, though, to gloss over the problems the movies have, and the FACT that an iconic scene and some iconic dialogue was lifted from another movie. I don't give a damn if it's the same franchise. It's lazy, and makes me wonder if these people are capable of writing original material.

I think the biggest problem is you act offended that people don't have the same issues with the movie that you do and you seem offended that people are defending their positions.

I've said time and again that I don't believe Star Trek Into Darkness is a perfect movie, as have many others. But I find it a Hell of a lot of fun to watch. As far as the scenes that are similar to The Wrath of Khan, I admit when I first heard about it I rolled my eyes. However, when I actually saw it in action, I thought it was incredibly well done and stands on its own.

But if they liked it, wouldn't they be more apt to check out other Trek movies, TV shows, books, or comics?

I don't know, some may. I really liked the Captain America movie, but I haven't went rushing to the comic store to buy up back issues of the series'. Sometimes, I simply enjoy something for what it is then move on to the next thing.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Oh, goody - finally somebody admits to ganging up on people who dislike the Abrams movies.

So not only did you ignore the point, you completely misrepresented it.

 

[JWPlatt]

Creative theft? Dramatic theft? Indication of lazy writing? Yeah, I'd say so.

It's not theft. "Theft," "ripoff," or whatever the word-of-the-day is implies a conscious intent to do harm.

This is why people gang up on the "haters." No one gives two shits that people don't like the film. But when they use such obvious loaded language to skew the discussion in their favor, it becomes very hard to take them seriously.

No one is forcing anyone to like the film, but don't piss on the fans' cornflakes either.

Really? No one [cares] that people don't like the film? There's a whole lot of protest going on here about it for no one caring.

Your last two paragraphs would apply just as easily if the roles were reversed, reckless generalizations notwithstanding.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Lazy writing isn't fun, in fact it can be a killjoy. I was rolling along with the flick, flaws and all, and then that scene happened and I started to cringe. The most positive thing I can say was that Pine* fucking delivered in that scene, "I'm scared, Spock", he was so good in that it almost made me forgive the laziness of it the scene, but then Spock's yell plunged it straight to hell (or, San Fransisco). We could be getting some bold and original, but instead it's call backs to better Trek stories. It's the same problem I have with SUPERMAN RETURNS where it has a bunch of throwbacks to the original Donner film that feel completely unnecessary and only remind you how much better the older film is.

*= It actually puzzles me that Pine doesn't get enough props. Usually it's Quinto that gets all the praise. I may not like the way nuKirk is written, but Pine's a great actor in it. That's what keeps me from writing off all of nuTrek, is the fact that they have a really good cast. If they get a script that's among the best of Trek, man oh man, it would be fantastic.

 

[BillJ]

Really? No one [cares] that people don't like the film? There's a whole lot of protest going on here about it.

Whether someone likes something or not is a personal choice but I'm not sure what it accomplishes to constantly bang on it. If I really dislike something, I move on to things that I do like. Is it really necessary for me to go to the Voyager forum and tell them how shitty I think their show is? What exactly is the point of me pissing on something someone else enjoys?

The only time I really jump in is when there is a misrepresentation of what is actually on screen or the famous "Star Trek never did that!!!"