Khan #1 Review

[CaptPapa]

^ Okay, that's pretty clear, thanks.

Keeping in mind I've only watched ST09 a couple of times, and STID not at all; how is nuSpock's emotionalism explained? Vulcan's emotional control obviously extents back before 2233; or is that one of the things that was changed after the new timeline was created? If so, I missed the explanation.

First off: Look at "The Cage," which is set about four years before the 2009 movie (albeit in a different timeline). In that pilot episode, Spock smiles openly. In many of the early episodes, he's more overtly emotional than he later became. Maybe the younger Spock was just less controlled than he became later in life. A lot of people seem to overlook that these movies are depicting younger versions of the characters than the ones we saw in TOS. The time frame of the Abrams movies is about halfway between "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before." ("The Cage" was 2254, WNM was 2265, and the movies have taken place mainly in 2258-60.)

Second: Spock saw his mother and his whole planet die right in front of him. It should be self-evident why he would be, in his elder self's words, "emotionally compromised" after such a horrific tragedy.

I can certainly appreciate the explanation in your second point - you're right, that would affect any being and I hadn't considered that angle. Whether it would lead to a permanent emotional change is debatable though. Personally, I think it was the writers' idea to create interest and put butts in seats.
As for your first point, while accurate, I tend to dismiss Spock's early (and inconsistent) emotions as merely character development - the creative team's doing, not the character's flaws. And I don't mean that as any fault - it's quite natural to have growning pains in a new series like that.

 

[Daddy Todd]

The first issue was a little too "Ender's Game-y" for my taste, but considering consultant Roberto Orci was one of the writers of the upcoming "Ender's Game" movie, perhaps that's to be expected.

The art was great -- for my money, David Messina is the best artist IDW ever had doing Trek. Unfortunately, he only did the first three pages. The flashbacks, by Claudia Balboni & Marina Castelvetro, are similar to Messina's style, so they didn't feel like they were flown in from a different book, but seemed riddled with anachronisms. I was around in 1972-1985, and I don't remember it looking ANYTHING like how it's depicted here. But I'm probably the only reader on the planet that will be bugged by that!

 

[Therin of Andor]

I was around in 1972-1985, and I don't remember it looking ANYTHING like how it's depicted here.

I dunno. The computers of '79 were said to be decades ahead of known technology, but there are familiar elements, such as the backs of them with the cords coming out. The 1972 view of New York seems to have the Twin Towers at odd heights; they were both fully constructed by then.

 

[Ovation]

I was around in 1972-1985, and I don't remember it looking ANYTHING like how it's depicted here.

I dunno. The computers of '79 were said to be decades ahead of known technology, but there are familiar elements, such as the backs of them with the cords coming out. The 1972 view of New York seems to have the Twin Towers at odd heights; they were both fully constructed by then.

In our world. Nothing guarantees that even the "prime timeline" is directly from ours. (and how many heads will explode contemplating that temporal conundrum? )

 

[Christopher]

Well, of course the Prime timeline isn't ours. It has different laws of physics and biology, and its history diverged from ours decades ago. Plus we have a TV show called Star Trek in our universe.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It was never conclusively established that Daniels's future was the same one we saw in TOS through VGR.

What about his final appearance? If the post-"Storm Front" timeline - meaning, the real Trek timeline - was any different from what Daniels knew to be true, he would have said something. (Daniels was always very gung-ho about making Archer fulfill his destiny, so if Daniels believed Archer still had work to do in changing the timeline to something Daniels would recognize, he would not have simply let Archer go.)

 

[JD]

Maybe it was just close enough that Daniels was satisfied.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It was never conclusively established that Daniels's future was the same one we saw in TOS through VGR.

What about his final appearance? If the post-"Storm Front" timeline - meaning, the real Trek timeline - was any different from what Daniels knew to be true, he would have said something. (Daniels was always very gung-ho about making Archer fulfill his destiny, so if Daniels believed Archer still had work to do in changing the timeline to something Daniels would recognize, he would not have simply let Archer go.)

There's the little thing about Archer destroying the Delphic Expanse in 2153, when Daniels' history has it expanding for centuries until it fills the quadrant by the 2600's. Trek Prime is definitely not the same timeline he knew.

But who says it's the same Daniels as we saw earlier? We did see one explode in "Cold Front" and another die of rapid ageing in "Storm Front"

 

[F. King Daniel]

Personally, I think it was the writers' idea to create interest and put butts in seats.

Isn't that the goal of every movie writer in human history?

 

[Pauln6]

I enjoyed it. I have no issue if they want to explain away some of the many plot holes in the last movie as long as the story holds my attention, and this one did. My principal issue is that making the movie the Wrath of Khan stole a lot of its emotional resonance - Kirk hadn't really wronged Khan, his relationship with Spock is in its infancy, and the reset button doesn't allow the audience any time to grieve.

If they want to round out Khan and bring him back for a proper showdown sequel in the comics I have no issue with that. I'd still like to see him in charge of a multi-racial (Klingons, Orions etc) terrorist group.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think they made the movie TWOK. They made one scene a copy of TWOK, and it was a misfire that pulled me out of the story; but the rest of it felt fresh and very different from TWOK. I mean, Kirk and Khan actually had multiple scenes face to face! Khan was actually sane, calculating and manipulative rather than a melodramatic nutcase! And he wasn't even the main villain this time -- Marcus was. In almost every respect, this was an entirely different, and IMHO better, story than TWOK; but unfortunately it did have one sequence that gratuitously copied TWOK, and that tends to overshadow the rest in many viewers' minds.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It was never conclusively established that Daniels's future was the same one we saw in TOS through VGR.

What about his final appearance? If the post-"Storm Front" timeline - meaning, the real Trek timeline - was any different from what Daniels knew to be true, he would have said something. (Daniels was always very gung-ho about making Archer fulfill his destiny, so if Daniels believed Archer still had work to do in changing the timeline to something Daniels would recognize, he would not have simply let Archer go.)

There's the little thing about Archer destroying the Delphic Expanse in 2153, when Daniels' history has it expanding for centuries until it fills the quadrant by the 2600's. Trek Prime is definitely not the same timeline he knew.

But who says it's the same Daniels as we saw earlier? We did see one explode in "Cold Front" and another die of rapid ageing in "Storm Front"

They seem to be running out of "Fronts" for Daniels to appear in. If the show had lasted longer, what would have been next? Popular Front? People's Front?

 

[Pauln6]

In almost every respect, this was an entirely different, and IMHO better, story than TWOK; but unfortunately it did have one sequence that gratuitously copied TWOK, and that tends to overshadow the rest in many viewers' minds.

That's a fair point but for me it wasn't just that one scene that was overblown and silly. The scene with Scotty and the security guard was so painfully drawn out that it made all the characters and the writers look incompetent.

That's not to say i didn't enjoy it. the characters were nowhere as brain-frazzlingly inept as those in Prometheus and I had higher hopes for that movie.

I'm also hoping that the comic will come up with a plausible reason to leave people inside torpedoes...

 

[F. King Daniel]

To smuggle them out. The torpedoes were obviously going to be shipped out, it's a clever way to get the Botany Bay crew out of whatever Section 31 hole they were being stored in.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

I don't think they made the movie TWOK. They made one scene a copy of TWOK, and it was a misfire that pulled me out of the story; but the rest of it felt fresh and very different from TWOK. I mean, Kirk and Khan actually had multiple scenes face to face! Khan was actually sane, calculating and manipulative rather than a melodramatic nutcase! And he wasn't even the main villain this time -- Marcus was. In almost every respect, this was an entirely different, and IMHO better, story than TWOK; but unfortunately it did have one sequence that gratuitously copied TWOK, and that tends to overshadow the rest in many viewers' minds.

I feel like the main problem with both Trek 09 and STID is that they had good storyline ideas, but then no one went back to tighten up the nuts and bolts to make a good final product. It's like they were more interested in peppering gratuitous name-drops of other Trek series (including the one super awful scene in STID) and left out vetting bits and pieces that little tweaks to the script or dialogue or scenes might've done.

I don't know how much of this is the director and how much of it is in the writing, but it feels like a little more editorial care would've done wonders to tighten up the movie. Getting rid of that gratuitous scene, making Marcus's emphasis as villain more concrete, changing timescales so that everything's not rushed into a single day, etc.

I felt the same way about ST09, in that the flaws seemed to me to come from a lack of care on details than anything pertaining to Trek or continuity. I mean if Nero was okay with floating around for 25 years (or was in Rura Penthe for that long or whatever) I don't think that the story would've been that much more damaged by giving Kirk a somewhat more credible rise to captaincy, maybe inserting a couple montages between say the Kobayashi Maru face-off and the Vulcan system thing, or finishing off Nero and becoming captain.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't think they made the movie TWOK. They made one scene a copy of TWOK, and it was a misfire that pulled me out of the story; but the rest of it felt fresh and very different from TWOK. I mean, Kirk and Khan actually had multiple scenes face to face! Khan was actually sane, calculating and manipulative rather than a melodramatic nutcase! And he wasn't even the main villain this time -- Marcus was. In almost every respect, this was an entirely different, and IMHO better, story than TWOK; but unfortunately it did have one sequence that gratuitously copied TWOK, and that tends to overshadow the rest in many viewers' minds.

I feel like the main problem with both Trek 09 and STID is that they had good storyline ideas, but then no one went back to tighten up the nuts and bolts to make a good final product. It's like they were more interested in peppering gratuitous name-drops of other Trek series (including the one super awful scene in STID) and left out vetting bits and pieces that little tweaks to the script or dialogue or scenes might've done.

I don't know how much of this is the director and how much of it is in the writing, but it feels like a little more editorial care would've done wonders to tighten up the movie. Getting rid of that gratuitous scene, making Marcus's emphasis as villain more concrete, changing timescales so that everything's not rushed into a single day, etc.

I felt the same way about ST09, in that the flaws seemed to me to come from a lack of care on details than anything pertaining to Trek or continuity. I mean if Nero was okay with floating around for 25 years (or was in Rura Penthe for that long or whatever) I don't think that the story would've been that much more damaged by giving Kirk a somewhat more credible rise to captaincy, maybe inserting a couple montages between say the Kobayashi Maru face-off and the Vulcan system thing, or finishing off Nero and becoming captain.

This. 100%

 

[Therin of Andor]

My principal issue is that making the movie the Wrath of Khan stole a lot of its emotional resonance - Kirk hadn't really wronged Khan, his relationship with Spock is in its infancy.

Precisely why it was done that way. To create a different story. "Into Darkness" is neither "Space Seed", nor "The Wrath of Khan". It's a new adventure for Khan, and a very different story arc for the characters.

And I thought STiD had plenty of emotional resonance. Different emotional resonance, but no less emotional. For me, at least. Until that tribble revived, I was sure Kirk was staying dead... at least until the next movie.

 

[Pauln6]

My principal issue is that making the movie the Wrath of Khan stole a lot of its emotional resonance - Kirk hadn't really wronged Khan, his relationship with Spock is in its infancy.

Precisely why it was done that way. To create a different story. "Into Darkness" is neither "Space Seed", nor "The Wrath of Khan". It's a new adventure for Khan, and a very different story arc for the characters.

And I thought STiD had plenty of emotional resonance. Different emotional resonance, but no less emotional. For me, at least. Until that tribble revived, I was sure Kirk was staying dead... at least until the next movie.

Different strokes. Pike's death had emotional resonance for me. I was laughing too hard when Kirk died! It was just so contrived and silly. I really thought it was meant to be an in-joke.

 

[Christopher]

I feel like the main problem with both Trek 09 and STID is that they had good storyline ideas, but then no one went back to tighten up the nuts and bolts to make a good final product...

I think the same can be said for most Hollywood feature films today. A lot of them have gaping story problems and structural problems, because writing is considered a secondary element in the industry, and because the emphasis is more on visceral impact and spectacle and action than on plot logic or cohesiveness. A lot of what people blame Abrams and Bad Robot for is really, I think, endemic to feature-film culture as a whole. Bad Robot are just doing what they can within the constraints imposed by the studios and the financial backers.

 

[CaptPapa]

Personally, I think it was the writers' idea to create interest and put butts in seats.

Isn't that the goal of every movie writer in human history?

Affirmative, just some have more respect for the source material than others.