Alternate universe idea dilutes the drama of film?

[ST-One]

Wishful thinking on my part or a lack of observation on yours? The jury is out, let others decide whether your lack of any evidence is more persuasive than my subjective observations.

What you read into a movie, how you interpret what happens between scenes is entirely up to you.

It doesn't change the fact that Khan is driven by revenge.
(For god's sake, I can believe that, nearly 30 years after the film came out, we have to argue about Khan's motivations.)

But this is nothing new - many people who really enjoyed NuTrek enjoyed it on a purely superficial level. Others enjoyed the more subtle stuff while some deplored the subtle changes to 'Trek canon'. It's different strokes for different folks.

Ah, we haven't had a swipe against the intelligence of those who like Star Trek in a (short) while.

Lol - intelligent people often enjoy films on a superficial level! My opinion is what I read into the movie but your opinion is 'fact'? But you're right, I agree that Khan is driven by revenge; my point was that this isn't his ONLY motivation, based on the things I observed and reported, unlike Nero.

In the context of the movie (since Khan never stated any other intentions, and shouted down the only person - Joachim - who suggested another course of (in)action with musings of revenge) it is his only motivation.

Oh, and, no. My opinions aren't anymore fact than yours are.
The film is fact. I suggest you watch it.

 

[ST-One]

But Khan's motivations actually make sense. There is a 'cause and effect' between Kirk's lack of action and the suffering it caused Khan. Nero, on the other hand, has sworn revenge against the only person (Spock) who was trying to help him. The motivation for Nero is as poor as the motivation for Shinzon in Star Trek: Nemesis. Though I liked the job Eric Bana did with the material he had to work with.

Well, yes, Nero's sworn revenge against Spock doesn't make much sense.
But often anger and rage is directed towards those who tried to help but failed.
It's illogical. It's 'human'.

Shinzon was indeed all over the place - but I still liked how Hardy played him.

 

[Pauln6]

In the context of the movie (since Khan never stated any other intentions, and shouted down the only person - Joachim - who suggested another course of (in)action with musings of revenge) it is his only motivation.

Oh, and, no. My opinions aren't anymore fact than yours are.
The film is fact. I suggest you watch it.

Ok, let's not go round in circles, lets look at the movie.

Firstly, Khan was considering abandoning the chase until Kirk taunted him, THEN he shouted down Joachim and revenge became his prime concern again. This suggests more than one motivation: Genesis and Kirk.

Secondly, why did Khan maroon Reliant's crew but kill the Regula One scientists?

 

[Sabataage]

OT:

Wow... fascinating how you can be so spectacularly off the mark about Khan's motivation.

Every time I come to this forum now I feel like I'm reading extra bitchy transcripts from Fox News. It seems like every topic devolves into two assholes yammering away at each other for fun.

 

[Pauln6]

OT:

Wow... fascinating how you can be so spectacularly off the mark about Khan's motivation.

Every time I come to this forum now I feel like I'm reading extra bitchy transcripts from Fox News. It seems like every topic devolves into two assholes yammering away at each other for fun.

Lol! I apologise if I came across as an asshole! Comparting me to Fox news is a bit much though. I'm not even from the USA and even I know what a joke they are.

I thought I was trying to engage in a reasonable discussion about the motivations of potential villains in the alternate universe with reference to the one most commonly touted as a possible upcoming villain. Dammit, and just when I thought I'd posed a sensible question you went and sidetracked the thread. Now whose the asshole? I bid you good day...

 

[M'Sharak]

OT:

Wow... fascinating how you can be so spectacularly off the mark about Khan's motivation.

Every time I come to this forum now I feel like I'm reading extra bitchy transcripts from Fox News. It seems like every topic devolves into two assholes yammering away at each other for fun.

Not every topic, thankfully, but this one does seem to have become largely limited to two people (please don't imply "assholes" even indirectly, if you would) and has at times been getting a little too personal. Let's sit back, take a deep breath and let it be a discussion again. Maybe we can even work back around to the more general topic of whether the alt-universe setting necessarily dilutes the drama of a film and not be quite so rigidly focused on interpreting Khan and the complexity of his motivation (or the absence of same.)

...and not just devon-ly state that he's wrong.

Ouch, and yet not entirely unearned. We probably oughtn't let that become part of the standard vocabulary either, though.

 

[JarodRussell]

In the context of the movie (since Khan never stated any other intentions, and shouted down the only person - Joachim - who suggested another course of (in)action with musings of revenge) it is his only motivation.

Oh, and, no. My opinions aren't anymore fact than yours are.
The film is fact. I suggest you watch it.

In the context of the movie, Khan asked Kirk for Genesis information before going to kill him. So he did have a plan going beyond his revenge. He also agreed to spare his crew (well, kind of). Later on he changed, because the revenge lust got stronger with every defeat. Khan actually went through a development in TWOK. Nero didn't. Even after 25 years (!), he was the same guy who killed Robau in rage, and when he's about to get sucked up into the black hole, he's still the same guy (but that's the problem with the entire movie, no character development with ANY of the characters).

But the Khan blowing up Genesis totally eaten up by his revenge lust is not the same Khan that was discovered by Chekov, who was still controlled, superior, reasonable.

 

[Pauln6]

Not every topic, thankfully, but this one does seem to have become largely limited to two people (please don't imply "assholes" even indirectly, if you would) and has at times been getting a little too personal. Let's sit back, take a deep breath and let it be a discussion again. Maybe we can even work back around to the more general topic of whether the alt-universe setting necessarily dilutes the drama of a film and not be quite so rigidly focused on interpreting Khan and the complexity of his motivation (or the absence of same.)

...and not just devon-ly state that he's wrong.

Ouch, and yet not entirely unearned. We probably oughtn't let that become part of the standard vocabulary either, though.

I don't take any of it personally and I would urge everybody to take this kind of debate in the good humoured way it's intended! Judicious use of smileys doesn't always get the message across. I think it has developed into a two man (or two asshole) show just because we're in roughly the same time zone and can post fairly quickly to each other's responses.

My problem is I'm a lawyer and I have a tendency to use cross-examination techniques if I think somebody should try to justify their stance. That means I sometimes ask the same question more than once in slightly different ways to see if I can get an answer. If the only answer I get is a rolling eye smiley, I take that as a moral victory

 

[Pauln6]

In the context of the movie (since Khan never stated any other intentions, and shouted down the only person - Joachim - who suggested another course of (in)action with musings of revenge) it is his only motivation.

Oh, and, no. My opinions aren't anymore fact than yours are.
The film is fact. I suggest you watch it.

In the context of the movie, Khan asked Kirk for Genesis information before going to kill him. So he did have a plan going beyond his revenge. He also agreed to spare his crew (well, kind of). Later on he changed, because the revenge lust got stronger with every defeat. Khan actually went through a development in TWOK. Nero didn't. Even after 25 years (!), he was the same guy who killed Robau in rage, and when he's about to get sucked up into the black hole, he's still the same guy (but that's the problem with the entire movie, no character development with ANY of the characters).

But the Khan blowing up Genesis totally eaten up by his revenge lust is not the same Khan that was discovered by Chekov, who was still controlled, superior, reasonable.

Thank you! That's what I'm talking about!

I'm not sure that I agree with no character development at all in NuTrek though. Occasionally, such as when Kirk first takes command, he wobbles a bit - we see his facade crack for a brief instant and you get a sense that actually he doesn't necessarily believe his own hype but knows how to look like he does most of the time. It would be nice if they made more of this - he's not Kirk Prime and has had few of the life experiences of Kirk Prime up to now - what kind of Captain will he be? It could be interesting and add drama if he's a bit more flawed, although I'm not sure I want to see him banging Rand on the photocpier at the Xmas party...

Secondly the relationship between Spock and Sarek goes through a very clear arc.

 

[ST-One]

Firstly, Khan was considering abandoning the chase

When does that happen?

Secondly, why did Khan maroon Reliant's crew but kill the Regula One scientists?

Quite probably, for the same reason he gives Kirk: to be buried alive. Buried aliiiieve....

 

[ST-One]

In the context of the movie (since Khan never stated any other intentions, and shouted down the only person - Joachim - who suggested another course of (in)action with musings of revenge) it is his only motivation.

Oh, and, no. My opinions aren't anymore fact than yours are.
The film is fact. I suggest you watch it.

In the context of the movie, Khan asked Kirk for Genesis information before going to kill him. So he did have a plan going beyond his revenge. He also agreed to spare his crew (well, kind of). Later on he changed, because the revenge lust got stronger with every defeat. Khan actually went through a development in TWOK. Nero didn't. Even after 25 years (!), he was the same guy who killed Robau in rage, and when he's about to get sucked up into the black hole, he's still the same guy (but that's the problem with the entire movie, no character development with ANY of the characters).

But the Khan blowing up Genesis totally eaten up by his revenge lust is not the same Khan that was discovered by Chekov, who was still controlled, superior, reasonable.

Yes, Khan was very controlled in that scene with Chekov and also in the conversation where he wanted to let Kirk know who it waaas who killed him.
But haven't you noticed that he only remained calm so long as he had the clear upper hand? He had to be overruled by Joachim to withdraw after Kirk returned fire.
His lust for revenge got the better of him then already.

 

[UFO]

However I wasn't upset by the planet's [Romulus'] destruction. Why? Well, I liked STXI, ...

I rest my case.

Isn't that what this is all about? That the STXI-haters are upset that JJ's film somehow affected their beloved Trek?

Sure, but the interesting point is that since they (We! Though I'm more a disliker. ) weren’t won over by the emotional button pushing (maybe I'm being unfair, lets say the fun aspects of the movie and nostalgic characters etc), the things you might have otherwise disliked are things you now overlook and they do dislike. There could be a number of reasons for that, but in my case it was mainly unStar-Trek-like behaviour (see below). This is the only thing with the name Star Trek that has managed to offend me in that regard. Maybe I have just been lucky so far.

People argue that Penny from "Dr Horrible's Sing-A-Long-Blog" was merely a plot device. …Yet, she's a plot device essential to the story, and much loved.

Basically, some characters who are just 'plot devices' there to serve other characters can work out if they're given enough.

I would submit that a plot device is a jarring one dimensional contrivance only there to achieve an end and so doesn't have the depth to be "much loved" or be an organic part of the narrative. But maybe that's not the official definition.

… imagine if you were addicted to Big Macs. Say the government passed a law regulating the fat content of Big Macs. …

What if the rest of the public were greatly relieved that Big Macs no longer caused weight gain? What if they found the change in flavor to be largely imperceptible?

Wait, you're not suggesting the difference between STXI and TOS is largely imperceptible? No of course not, so that’s the first place your analogy breaks down. By the way, what are these Big Mac fans addicted to if not the flavour (which you say is almost the same)? Fat withdrawl? Surely they aren't just being picky for no good reason!

Actually the second problem is that the situation with STXI is the exactly opposite of the scenario you suggest. It is of course STXI that is the theatrical equivalent of fast food. The difficulty the minority have is in convincing the majority that too much isn't good for them. That Star Trek shouldn't be considered a Big Mac type brand because while its not usually high drama, it has always had more to offer than that, even in its lesser moments.

That appeasing the hard core Big Mac fanbase is more important than profit consideration?

No, that making a good movie is more important than profit considerations. Though the weird thing is, if they make a good movie, it probably won't be much less profitable! And you wouldn't have to be subconsciously ashamed of liking it. Win, win!

… many people who really enjoyed NuTrek enjoyed it on a purely superficial level. Others enjoyed the more subtle stuff while some deplored the subtle changes to 'Trek canon'. It's different strokes for different folks.

That subtle stuff was too elusive for me unless your mean all the Easter Bunnies. One of the less "subtle" changes I noted was that in the AU Star Fleet is now hiring red shirts who would fail biker gang deportment tests. People who are nothing more that undisciplined thugs and bullies. The fact we never see any corrective action shows how little importance it has for TPTB and makes it look like Star Fleet couldn't care less either. Although they shouldn't be in SF in the first place. Such social conventions are form last century not two hence (I would hope). Yes I know they were just more plot devices but there are implications. I just can't imagine such gratuitous violence happening in TOS, partly because of the times and audience I accept.

 

[Pauln6]

Actually the second problem is that the situation with STXI is the exactly opposite of the scenario you suggest. It is of course STXI that is the theatrical equivalent of fast food. The difficulty the minority have is in convincing the majority that too much isn't good for them. That Star Trek shouldn't be considered a Big Mac type brand because while its not usually high drama, it has always had more to offer than that, even in its lesser moments.

That appeasing the hard core Big Mac fanbase is more important than profit consideration?

One of the less "subtle" changes I noted was that in the AU Star Fleet is now hiring red shirts who would fail biker gang deportment tests. People who are nothing more that undisciplined thugs and bullies. The fact we never see any corrective action shows how little importance it has for TPTB and makes it look like Star Fleet couldn't care less either. Although they shouldn't be in SF in the first place. Such social conventions are form last century not two hence (I would hope). Yes I know they were just more plot devices but there are implications. I just can't imagine such gratuitous violence happening in TOS, partly because of the times and audience I accept.

Lol - good analogy. I don't like the nastier elements of NuTrek either or the regressive sexism. However, I seem to recall Scotty and Chekov getting into a bar brawl with Klingons in TOS...

Firstly, Khan was considering abandoning the chase

When does that happen?

Secondly, why did Khan maroon Reliant's crew but kill the Regula One scientists?

Quite probably, for the same reason he gives Kirk: to be buried alive. Buried aliiiieve....

When they're going into the nebula, Khan clearly hesitates and starts to see the wisdom in what Joachim is saying and it's only when Kirk sneers at him that he charges on - his ego overcomes his common sense. But what is clear from the movie is that Kirk needed to goad him to keep his desire for revenge as the domonant of his two motivations.

Terrell states that Khan tortured the scientists and then slit their throats because they wouldn't give him the Genesis data - this has nothing to do with his revenge against Kirk.

In the context of the movie (since Khan never stated any other intentions, and shouted down the only person - Joachim - who suggested another course of (in)action with musings of revenge) it is his only motivation.

In the context of the movie, Khan asked Kirk for Genesis information before going to kill him. So he did have a plan going beyond his revenge. He also agreed to spare his crew (well, kind of). Later on he changed, because the revenge lust got stronger with every defeat. Khan actually went through a development in TWOK. Nero didn't. Even after 25 years (!), he was the same guy who killed Robau in rage, and when he's about to get sucked up into the black hole, he's still the same guy (but that's the problem with the entire movie, no character development with ANY of the characters).

But the Khan blowing up Genesis totally eaten up by his revenge lust is not the same Khan that was discovered by Chekov, who was still controlled, superior, reasonable.

Yes, Khan was very controlled in that scene with Chekov and also in the conversation where he wanted to let Kirk know who it waaas who killed him. But haven't you noticed that he only remained calm so long as he had the clear upper hand? He had to be overruled by Joachim to withdraw after Kirk returned fire. His lust for revenge got the better of him then already.

You've overlooked Jarod's earlier comments, and the fact that Khan's approach changes as his circumstnces change is evidence that he is a more complex villain than Nero who just rumbles on regardless.

Dragging this thread back on track, I'm hoping that if they need a villain in the sequel, the fact that they don't have to focus so much on the origins will mean that the villain can be given a few more layers. They really have to overcome the the notion that it is the Kirk and Spock show too. They are the leads it's true but I really want to see some landing parties featuring the supporting cast as well. Sending Spock and Kirk across to the Narada alone was silly and they missed out on giving Uhura and McCoy a bit more airtime and a bit of action (e.g. Uhura speaks Romulan, McCoy was needed to treat Pike).

 

[ST-One]

When they're going into the nebula, Khan clearly hesitates and starts to see the wisdom in what Joachim is saying and it's only when Kirk sneers at him that he charges on - his ego overcomes his common sense. But what is clear from the movie is that Kirk needed to goad him to keep his desire for revenge as the domonant of his two motivations.

Yes, I remembered after I posted; it's the 'slowing to one half impulse power' conversation, right?

So much for the (more complex) superior mind.

Terrell states that Khan tortured the scientists and then slit their throats because they wouldn't give him the Genesis data - this has nothing to do with his revenge against Kirk.

'He's completely mad, Admiral.'

He cut his search for Genesis short, because his prime target (Kirk) was getting closer.

You've overlooked Jarod's earlier comments, and the fact that Khan's approach changes as his circumstnces change is evidence that he is a more complex villain than Nero who just rumbles on regardless.

Khan has two objectives: 1. killing Kirk. 2. getting Genesis (for whatever reason)

Nero has two objectives: 1. making Spock watch the destruction of Vulcan. 2. destroying the Federation, in the hopes of creating a stronger Romulus

I don't see how either one is more complex than the other.

 

[UFO]

I just can't imagine such gratuitous violence happening in TOS, partly because of the times and audience I accept.

Lol - good analogy. I don't like the nastier elements of NuTrek either or the regressive sexism. However, I seem to recall Scotty and Chekov getting into a bar brawl with Klingons in TOS...

I was hoping it wasn't too self righteous!

Actually I had the scene you referred to in mind when I wrote the above. Given the extreme provocation, Scotty's reaction was unavoidable!

But seriously, I feel that one was a fair fight in the Keystone Kops tradition, not the graphic assault in STXI. I don't recall any where Star Fleet personnel ganged up on a drunk townie after he called one of them a cupcake. Certainly not one where they continue to beat said townie almost unconscious (or worse) even after he stopped resisting and despite Uhura telling them to stop.

If they wanted to tritely portray Kirk as a bad boy why not have him get chucked out of the bar by bouncers after hitting on someone's girlfriend etc, but without going over the top. Pike could come along and help him out of the gutter ... . Or better still something non violent and original.

Actullay I was inspired to watch some of TWOK myself. A good example of the "lost art" of blending insightful diologue with action.

 

[Pauln6]

Khan has two objectives: 1. killing Kirk. 2. getting Genesis (for whatever reason)

Nero has two objectives: 1. making Spock watch the destruction of Vulcan. 2. destroying the Federation, in the hopes of creating a stronger Romulus

I don't see how either one is more complex than the other.

There are similarities between the two characters, it's true, and marooning Spock to make him suffer parallels Khan's decision to maroon Kirk - neither of them was likely to be partcularly effective punishments either since rescue was far more likely than long term suffering or death. However the purpose of the characters is very different.

Nero is an event calculated to bring the characters together. He has virtually no personality of his own and his lumbering all-powerful ship is more like an obstacle to be overcome. The real challenge is not defeating Nero but positioning Kirk to meet his destiny.

Khan is very much a mirror image of Kirk. Their ships are evenly matched, they're both ageing, they're intelligent leaders, they thrive on struggle, they suffer the loss of loved ones, and they both love stealing any scenes they're in. I also love the fact that they never actually meet face to face in the flesh.

Anyway, I think we've exhausted this line of argument; some will agree with our respective viewpoints and some won't.

Personally, I hope that we don't get another villain with any similarity to either of them in the next movie. I think I'd prefer a team of villains, like Orion pirates or Klingon mercenaries, and a focus on getting the crew off the ship and into some personal combat. They might even decide to kil one of the main crew (please not Janice!) just to put some fear into us.

 

[NuFan]

Some fans' definition of a good Star Trek movie is radically different than what the general public would call a good Star Trek movie. The box office potential would be greatly reduced in most cases.

 

[Jeyl]

Some fans' definition of a good Star Trek movie is radically different than what the general public would call a good Star Trek movie. The box office potential would be greatly reduced in most cases.

Because that's how good movies are always judged. It's not about making a movie to be good in it's own right, but how you can make a movie appeal to the masses because that ALWAYS brings in the numbers!.... No, wait. That's not how it works.

In fact, some cases it's quite the opposite. Some films that bomb at the box office do way better than the films that actually did well. As SFDebris notes how the Princess Bride has done better than Nuts, John Carpenter's the Thing has done better than Tootsie, and Army of Darkness has done a heck of a lot better than Stop or my Mom will shoot.

This can also apply to Television as well. Joss Whedon's Firefly has certainly garnered a fan base despite the show being canceled before a whole season was complete. And let's not forget one of the biggest failed TV shows that later went on to form a huge fan base was Star Trek. You see, Star Trek didn't start out as "Let's appeal to the biggest audience possible!". Far from that. In fact, the original Pilot "The Cage" was rejected because the studios didn't get it and wanted Gene to have a more action oriented show. While Gene did deliver on that with the second pilot, it certainly didn't make action the central theme of the show.

 

[UFO]

Some fans' definition of a good Star Trek movie is radically different than what the general public would call a good Star Trek movie. The box office potential would be greatly reduced in most cases.

Well this fan's notion of a good movie is one that conforms to traditionally valued literary practices and holds to the established principles of the "world" they are based in, or at least make an issue of not doing so. I'm sorry it that is too constricting.