• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Lost scene from Wrath of Khan..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, GRANT. Your words. Eat them.

srombomb, I hope you didn't bail out. You should be here to see Grant eat his words.

Thanks for the info, Trevanian.
 
This might fall into the category like the scenes of Joachim and Khan on CetiAlpha ... Scott SAYS they filmed them, but nobody has seen script pages or bts pics of them filming them, so it is kinda hard to call.

Having met Judson Scott, and discussed his "scenes with Khan" long before it was ever (mis)reported in places like "Starlog", I can tell you that the scenes he's referring to were rehearsal scenes that he and Ricardo Montalban used, at Montalban's house, as they prepared for their roles over several days.

They weren't filmed, and they may have been impromptu drama exercises, not written scenes. Montalban liked to bond with his co-workers this way, and he was finding it difficult to get himself back into the headspace of Khan from TOS. In their interpretation - and well before they got any directives from higher up - they assumed that Khan and Joachim were actual father and son.

If Scott has since said in print that the scenes were filmed, he may be mis-remembering or has been mis-quoted. Certainly, the original version he told me was that they were rehearsal pieces only.

For the longest time the "Khan's baby" scene was thought to be apochryphal until a still surfaced from it.

Which ties in nicely to the Scott anecdote, because during filming, Scott got to see the (unused) painting of the family portrait - Khan, Marla and toddler - which is how he knew that Joachim wasn't Khan's son after all. Nevertheless, in his convention appearances, if asked by the audience about Khan's relationship to Joachim, Scott will invariably say, "He was my Daddy!"

When I did an interview with Paul Winfield, before ST II's release, he was surprised that the story of the black-faced white stunt man had reached Australia, and he confirmed then that "Terrell" had rolled down a hill because a toddler's face had appeared in a porthole of Khan's planetary abode.
 
srombomb, you have received a warning for your earlier actions. Please PM me with your comments if you choose.

Everyone else, this thread is under review. If there is any further behavior in egging on someone or more flaming, it's closed.
 
srombomb, you have received a warning for your earlier actions. Please PM me with your comments if you choose.

Everyone else, this thread is under review. If there is any further behavior in egging on someone or more flaming, it's closed.

Not to piss gasoline on flames, but aren't you warning the wronged party?
 
srombomb, you have received a warning for your earlier actions. Please PM me with your comments if you choose.

Everyone else, this thread is under review. If there is any further behavior in egging on someone or more flaming, it's closed.

Not to piss gasoline on flames, but aren't you warning the wronged party?

I agree with you, but in defense of the moderator's action, srombomb made the mistake of dropping the 'f___ you' bomb, which put him in violation of the board rules.

Fortunately, they're not punishing generally poor character, in which case they might as well 'prosecuteth all of us' as Lt. Uhura put it. :lol:

But yeah, language violations aside, srombomb was the less... offensive of the two, imho.
 
Fortunately, they're not punishing generally poor character, in which case they might as well 'prosecuteth all of us' as Lt. Uhura put it. :lol:
Bingo. Behaving in a boorish manner isn't against the rules (fortunately for yours truly); flaming other folks is.

Let's all please dial it back a bit. Thank you, trevanian for clearing that up. If srombomb is reading this, I hope he'll come back and give the place a second shot. And Grant, it really would be helpful for you to master the use of the MultiQuote feature. There's no excuse for triple-posts anymore, and it's not rocket science to figure it out.
 
I object to that. Grant deserves a warning as well. The OP overreacted towards Grant's overreaction, but how do you expect to keep him and other casual fans or internet surfers around, or to become more, if you punish them and do nothing the "boors" who get by by following the letter yet not the intent of the board's guidelines. The no "flaming" rule is there to make this a comfortable environment for people to hang out and discuss in. And of the two, who made this thread, and by extension this site, a less enjoyable place to visit?
 
I object to that. Grant deserves a warning as well. The OP overreacted towards Grant's overreaction, but how do you expect to keep him and other casual fans or internet surfers around, or to become more, if you punish them and do nothing the "boors" who get by by following the letter yet not the intent of the board's guidelines. The no "flaming" rule is there to make this a comfortable environment for people to hang out and discuss in. And of the two, who made this thread, and by extension this site, a less enjoyable place to visit?

I gotta agree...this is allowed to happen WAY too often. Dennis, Warped9 and Plum are three other big offenders that the mods go light on.
 
Please show where I have grounds to warn Grant for anything. Where did he flame or troll srombomb in this thread? Being a dick is not against the rules, and if we get into the habit of issuing infractions to people for having abrasive personalities, then there will be a lot more infractions going out.
 
Fortunately, they're not punishing generally poor character, in which case they might as well 'prosecuteth all of us' as Lt. Uhura put it. :lol:
Bingo. Behaving in a boorish manner isn't against the rules (fortunately for yours truly); flaming other folks is.

Let's all please dial it back a bit. Thank you, trevanian for clearing that up. If srombomb is reading this, I hope he'll come back and give the place a second shot. And Grant, it really would be helpful for you to master the use of the MultiQuote feature. There's no excuse for triple-posts anymore, and it's not rocket science to figure it out.

Please show where I have grounds to warn Grant for anything. Where did he flame or troll srombomb in this thread? Being a dick is not against the rules, and if we get into the habit of issuing infractions to people for having abrasive personalities, then there will be a lot more infractions going out.

And this is why things never change for the better around here. You are enforcing the LETTER of the "no flames" rule giving our resident Flame Warriors and Trolls a great big loophole that lets them sneer and smirk and be hostile towards other posters...just so long as they don't use certain words or be to obvious about it.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's posted with an INTENT of dismissing, demeaning or belittling the POSTER, it's a flame, no matter how "nicely put" it is.
 
This thread has really gotten off-track now; I was hoping we could keep it open to discuss the article that srombomb and trevanian were referring to. It certainly wasn't my intent to have this thread become a mini-QSF or MA.

darkwing
, if you want to discuss how the rules are (or, in your opinion, aren't) enforced around here, QSF is the appropriate place for that.

If anyone actually wants to discuss the cut scene from Wrath of Khan, please start a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top