I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan story?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
Starborn Dragon
Captain
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
Abd that caused some fans to have their hair turn white.
Abd that caused some fans to have their hair turn white.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
How so?
How so?
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
I've wondered the same thing myself. Maybe a decade or so of loose continuity, retcons, reimaginings, different artists interpretations, multi verses, crisis crossovers etc meant that Star Trek's sequal-prequel-reboot wasn't such an unusual thing for me.
If people have trouble handling Star Trek's current status, the continuity drift between each of the Mad Max movies must have driven some people insane.
I've wondered the same thing myself. Maybe a decade or so of loose continuity, retcons, reimaginings, different artists interpretations, multi verses, crisis crossovers etc meant that Star Trek's sequal-prequel-reboot wasn't such an unusual thing for me.
If people have trouble handling Star Trek's current status, the continuity drift between each of the Mad Max movies must have driven some people insane.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
They should look at the dimensions for the ship in the first pilot
They should look at the dimensions for the ship in the first pilot
I think you meant huge transparent aluminium inert reactant pipes.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
All the angry technophile butthurt can be found here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm
All the angry technophile butthurt can be found here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
As much as Ex Astris Scientia is an exhaustive and well researched site, that guy certainly does take things a bit too seriously at times. Even I find myself shaking my head and muttering "it's just a TV show" while reading over that site. Seriously, they actually worry over the size of a starship's windows over there!
As much as Ex Astris Scientia is an exhaustive and well researched site, that guy certainly does take things a bit too seriously at times. Even I find myself shaking my head and muttering "it's just a TV show" while reading over that site. Seriously, they actually worry over the size of a starship's windows over there!
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
UGH!!!!!!!!!!!
That's a hell of a lot of butthurt to get into over a FICTIONAL spaceship. OMG.
UGH!!!!!!!!!!!
That's a hell of a lot of butthurt to get into over a FICTIONAL spaceship. OMG.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
I'm very pleased all of you have such better things to do with your life, then.
I'm very pleased all of you have such better things to do with your life, then.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
Hey, hey! Registry numbers is a very important issue, and one for which I will continue to raise awareness for. But really, who the hell cares about a starship's windows?
I'm very pleased all of you have such better things to do with your life, then.
Hey, hey! Registry numbers is a very important issue, and one for which I will continue to raise awareness for. But really, who the hell cares about a starship's windows?
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
You're probably right. My mistake.
It just wouldn't be the same here without that.I'm very pleased all of you have such better things to do with your life, then.
Hey, hey! Registry numbers is a very important issue, and one for which I will continue to raise awareness for.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
'why rehash the Khan story?'
If I were making new Star Trek films and had access to the old stories and characters but were able to retell them in a different way, I would include his excellency in at some point, how could you not? It is the nearest Kirk and co have to 'The Joker'
'why rehash the Khan story?'
If I were making new Star Trek films and had access to the old stories and characters but were able to retell them in a different way, I would include his excellency in at some point, how could you not? It is the nearest Kirk and co have to 'The Joker'
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
It's important :/
It's important :/
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
The problem I have whenever someone uses this argument is, if Khan truly were picked because he was Captain Kirk's "Joker" why wasn't this used as a promotional tool for the film's marketing. A Batman movie wouldn't try to hide the Joker's role as a plot twist, and indeed Batman's cameo in Suicide Squad is already a matter of public knowledge. So what possible sense did it make to include Captain Kirk's arch nemesis, and then try to keep it a secret?
Yes, I know Abrams has since tried to blame Paramount for forcing the secret and that he didn't agree 100% with it, but still. Did someone seriously think they would plant more butts in the theatre saying "Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise fight someone" as opposed to saying "Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise fight their arch enemy Khan."
Sorry, I know this isn't exactly what this thread is about, but I had to get that off my chest anyway. The secrecy was retarded to begin with, but when someone points out that Khan is believed to be the Joker or Moriarty of Star Trek it only emphasises how stupid it was to try and keep him a secret.
The problem I have whenever someone uses this argument is, if Khan truly were picked because he was Captain Kirk's "Joker" why wasn't this used as a promotional tool for the film's marketing. A Batman movie wouldn't try to hide the Joker's role as a plot twist, and indeed Batman's cameo in Suicide Squad is already a matter of public knowledge. So what possible sense did it make to include Captain Kirk's arch nemesis, and then try to keep it a secret?
Yes, I know Abrams has since tried to blame Paramount for forcing the secret and that he didn't agree 100% with it, but still. Did someone seriously think they would plant more butts in the theatre saying "Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise fight someone" as opposed to saying "Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise fight their arch enemy Khan."
Sorry, I know this isn't exactly what this thread is about, but I had to get that off my chest anyway. The secrecy was retarded to begin with, but when someone points out that Khan is believed to be the Joker or Moriarty of Star Trek it only emphasises how stupid it was to try and keep him a secret.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
Secrecy had worked for Bad Robot before. From that POV without the benefit of hindsight, that's why it was smart.
The Khan reveal did work for some people. This is just anecdotal, but I saw it opening night here in Australia, and there was one of those big loud 'hisses' in the theatre when he said his name. I'd worked it out by the scene on Kronos (with the '72'), but there were a lot of non Trekkies who would have known of Khan (the guy who got the movie title and the meme) and would have got a little excited. I know this is a crazy thought, but there also would have been Trekkies who hadn't worked it out yet. In the lead up to the release, there was hype about the mysterious villain.
For the viewers in the U.S. though, the reveal would have well and truly been a fizzle. Maybe that was a small factor in why the international take did so much better compared to the domestic. As in 'a tiny, minuscule barely-even-noticeable' factor.
Secrecy had worked for Bad Robot before. From that POV without the benefit of hindsight, that's why it was smart.
The Khan reveal did work for some people. This is just anecdotal, but I saw it opening night here in Australia, and there was one of those big loud 'hisses' in the theatre when he said his name. I'd worked it out by the scene on Kronos (with the '72'), but there were a lot of non Trekkies who would have known of Khan (the guy who got the movie title and the meme) and would have got a little excited. I know this is a crazy thought, but there also would have been Trekkies who hadn't worked it out yet. In the lead up to the release, there was hype about the mysterious villain.
For the viewers in the U.S. though, the reveal would have well and truly been a fizzle. Maybe that was a small factor in why the international take did so much better compared to the domestic. As in 'a tiny, minuscule barely-even-noticeable' factor.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
You'll get no argument from me there - in hindsight it was a poor marketing strategy, I would have rather they played to the Khan angle, but I can see why they went for the secrecy, they thought they were being clever when in reality it was just contrived. I still would have used the character though, but just maybe slightly differently.
You'll get no argument from me there - in hindsight it was a poor marketing strategy, I would have rather they played to the Khan angle, but I can see why they went for the secrecy, they thought they were being clever when in reality it was just contrived. I still would have used the character though, but just maybe slightly differently.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
That's debateable. Even before STID's release there were arguments being made that Super 8 could have done better at the box office if some effort had been made to make the plot known prior to release rather than the vague trailers.
Regardless, I just can't comprehend the logic of:
A) Casting a popular up and coming rising star in the movie who'll generate buzz but not reveal anything about his character.
B) Featuring the franchise's "iconic villain" but not using that as a promotional tool.
I see it as the Bad Robot cadre trying too hard to be remembered as having one of cinema history's best plot twists. They were hoping the "my name is Khan" scene would be remembered for generations to come the same way the Statue of Liberty reveal in Planet of the Apes or "I am your father" in Empire is.
But regardless, even if they had wanted to be secretive about it, there are better ways to go about it. The method of keeping silent about Cumberbatch's role for eleven months after he was cast and then revealing him to be "John Harrison" only really succeeded in generating speculation and interest in the character, basically shining a spotlight on a cue card stating "this is the movie's plot twist." The more logical approach would have been to announce as soon as Cumberbatch was cast that he was playing "John Harrison." People would have shrugged and been like "whatever" thereby catching them off-guard when the Khan reveal came, as opposed to expecting it which most Trek fandom likely was.
Admittedly, this approach wouldn't actually have been possible given that the name John Harrison was thought up in post production and looped in over the dialogue from filming. The original alias (which was spoken by the actors during filming) was John Ericson, and had that been released everyone would have figured it out.
Like I said, secrecy isn't the way this should have been played. Khan should have been a component of the marketing.
That's debateable. Even before STID's release there were arguments being made that Super 8 could have done better at the box office if some effort had been made to make the plot known prior to release rather than the vague trailers.
Regardless, I just can't comprehend the logic of:
A) Casting a popular up and coming rising star in the movie who'll generate buzz but not reveal anything about his character.
B) Featuring the franchise's "iconic villain" but not using that as a promotional tool.
I see it as the Bad Robot cadre trying too hard to be remembered as having one of cinema history's best plot twists. They were hoping the "my name is Khan" scene would be remembered for generations to come the same way the Statue of Liberty reveal in Planet of the Apes or "I am your father" in Empire is.
But regardless, even if they had wanted to be secretive about it, there are better ways to go about it. The method of keeping silent about Cumberbatch's role for eleven months after he was cast and then revealing him to be "John Harrison" only really succeeded in generating speculation and interest in the character, basically shining a spotlight on a cue card stating "this is the movie's plot twist." The more logical approach would have been to announce as soon as Cumberbatch was cast that he was playing "John Harrison." People would have shrugged and been like "whatever" thereby catching them off-guard when the Khan reveal came, as opposed to expecting it which most Trek fandom likely was.
Admittedly, this approach wouldn't actually have been possible given that the name John Harrison was thought up in post production and looped in over the dialogue from filming. The original alias (which was spoken by the actors during filming) was John Ericson, and had that been released everyone would have figured it out.
Like I said, secrecy isn't the way this should have been played. Khan should have been a component of the marketing.
Re: I have a question about those torpedoes and why rehash the Khan st
In theatres alone, Super 8 made 260 mill on a 50 mill budget.
Regardless of whether they wanted it to do better, their method of 'getting butts into theatre seats and make some profit' worked. And prior to that, they had Lost and Cloverfield. As hard as it may be for some people to admit, it worked for Trek as well. This movie was more profitable than any of its predesscors. The movie may have done better if they hadn't kept it a secret, it might not. We'll never know one way or the other. All we have is 'Well I think 'this.''
I personally couldn't have cared less if they revealed Khan or not. I'm one of those weird people who don't like having too much spoiled for me. What's the point of seeing the movie, when I've practically pieced together the entire script months before the movie even opens?
In theatres alone, Super 8 made 260 mill on a 50 mill budget.
Regardless of whether they wanted it to do better, their method of 'getting butts into theatre seats and make some profit' worked. And prior to that, they had Lost and Cloverfield. As hard as it may be for some people to admit, it worked for Trek as well. This movie was more profitable than any of its predesscors. The movie may have done better if they hadn't kept it a secret, it might not. We'll never know one way or the other. All we have is 'Well I think 'this.''
I personally couldn't have cared less if they revealed Khan or not. I'm one of those weird people who don't like having too much spoiled for me. What's the point of seeing the movie, when I've practically pieced together the entire script months before the movie even opens?
Similar threads
