My Gripes with STID!

[BillJ]

Point taken but there was no intent on my part in using these terms. I just happen to draw the line at bringing people's family into the discussion but I see how I was out of line myself even if it was unintentional.

Apologies if I offended you. It wasn't my intent.

 

[kirkfan]

Point taken but there was no intent on my part in using these terms. I just happen to draw the line at bringing people's family into the discussion but I see how I was out of line myself even if it was unintentional.

Apologies if I offended you. It wasn't my intent.

Accepted and I apologize for my breach of decorum.

 

[fonzob1]

You mean how TWOK Khan was a one-dimensional thinker who risked his own freedom and that of his followers just to get some silly revenge on Kirk that cost him his life and the life of said followers? Instead of STID Khan who cared about his followers and would do anything to save them? Yeah, that's pretty lame all right.

I wasn't talking about the writing/storyline. I was talking about casting. Still, I can't believe you're dissing WOK...

You don't think there's going to be a range of opinions about a Star Trek movie on a Trek forum?

WOK is a highly regarded Trek film. To defend STID and diss WOK is ludacris. Cumberbatch should have played a "butt head" from Talos IV instead.

 

[Amaris]

I wasn't talking about the writing/storyline. I was talking about casting. Still, I can't believe you're dissing WOK...

You don't think there's going to be a range of opinions about a Star Trek movie on a Trek forum?

WOK is a highly regarded Trek film. To defend STID and diss WOK is ludacris. Cumberbatch should have played a "butt head" from Talos IV instead.

It all comes down to taste. I find WOK to be okay, but my two favorite movies are ST09 and STID. To each their own.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I wasn't talking about the writing/storyline. I was talking about casting. Still, I can't believe you're dissing WOK...

You don't think there's going to be a range of opinions about a Star Trek movie on a Trek forum?

WOK is a highly regarded Trek film. To defend STID and diss WOK is ludacris. Cumberbatch should have played a "butt head" from Talos IV instead.

The is the part where Rotten Tomatoes comes into play

TWOK:

Tomatometer 90% (All Critics) 71% (Top Critics)

Audience 90%

STID

Tomatometer; 87% (All Critics) 82% (Top Critics)

Audience 90%

 

[fonzob1]

You don't think there's going to be a range of opinions about a Star Trek movie on a Trek forum?

WOK is a highly regarded Trek film. To defend STID and diss WOK is ludacris. Cumberbatch should have played a "butt head" from Talos IV instead.

The is the part where Rotten Tomatoes comes into play

TWOK:

Tomatometer 90% (All Critics) 71% (Top Critics)

Audience 90%

STID

Tomatometer; 87% (All Critics) 82% (Top Critics)

Audience 90%

Those numbers are close, but WOK has aged well. STID will not. The STID people are on the wrong side of history. lol

 

[BigJake]

I think the larger point to be made there is that to whatever extent one sees aggregator scores as meaningful indicators of quality at all (and there are some stark limits to that), comparing aggregator scores for movies more than thirty years apart -- the first of which existed in a completely different critical environment before the existence of both aggregators and the tentpole blockbuster as we know it -- is almost completely meaningless.

 

[Dukhat]

TWOK Khan was a perfectly credible and psychologically believable Ahab analogue, that's his plot and his arc (one so satisfying that they kept going back to it for later Trek films, never as convincingly IMO) and it's visibly driving every frame of the performance, besides being reflected in everything from his character design to his environment. A couple minutes of exposition from Khan and Chekhov is all it takes to establish firmly and then we're away. Far as I'm concerned that's pretty darned good villain design; he's not just designed to be a robotic interchangeable Badass but an actual character, a once-great man driven into the abyss of madness and folly, and it works.

And that would be fine, if that was how Khan was described in Space Seed. But it wasn't. He is supposed to be a genius, not a one-dimensional revenge seeker. Spock even states as much in the film.

I can see why someone would be incredulous at the notion of your trying to make like MontalKhan somehow comes out the poorer in that comparison. I certainly don't buy that for a second.

You're entitled to your opinion. I stand by what I wrote.

 

[BigJake]

And that would be fine, if that was how Khan was described in Space Seed.

Khan hadn't lived through fifteen years of exile on a wasted rock in Space Seed. The character's change between the two stories made perfect sense and was quite clearly and concisely explained. Sorry, still not buying it.

(And if it's convincing sale of the "genius" angle you're hankering for, I still don't see why CumberKhan is especially to be preferred, anyway. The whole torpedoes subplot kind of... well, torpedoes that whole notion all by itself.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think the larger point to be made there is that to whatever extent one sees aggregator scores as meaningful indicators of quality at all, comparing aggregator scores for movies more than thirty years apart -- the first of which existed in a completely different critical environment before the existence of both aggregators and the tentpole blockbuster as we know it -- is almost completely meaningless.

Who's measuring quality? Its like or dislike. People liked stuff thirty years ago. People liked stuff two years ago.

 

[JWPlatt]

How come the special effect guys couldn't even let us see the crushing of the guy's skull? It's child's play with the means they have nowadays.

Child's play though it might be, I for one can do without it; someone's skull being crushed just isn't a thing I have any need or desire to see depicted graphically, on big screen or small. Having it happen off-camera was quite sufficient.

How about when two sustained phaser blasts make a head explode, obliterating it, and exposing the chest cavity so that the back of the rib cage and spinal column are visible? On-camera.

 

[BigJake]

Who's measuring quality? Its like or dislike.

The contexts being so vastly different, it's also apples and oranges.

 

[Dukhat]

WOK is a highly regarded Trek film. To defend STID and diss WOK is ludacris. Cumberbatch should have played a "butt head" from Talos IV instead.

Please explain to me how the crew of the Reliant could have mistaken Ceti Alpha V for Ceti Alpha VI.

Khan hadn't lived through fifteen years of exile on a wasted rock in Space Seed. The character's change between the two stories made perfect sense and was quite clearly and concisely explained. Sorry, still not buying it.

So that makes sense to you as to why he acts differently in TWOK, but the explanation in STID as to why he acts differently doesn't?

 

[BigJake]

So that makes sense to you as to why he acts differently in TWOK, but the explanation in STID as to why he acts differently doesn't?

The character in STID is incoherent and not very compelling to me, I don't really give a shit for the explanation if those things aren't there. IMO Cumberbatch would've been better served by having his own villain whose motives and actions made some actual sense.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Who's measuring quality? Its like or dislike.

The contexts being so vastly different, it's also apples and oranges.

What context? That people liked a movie? That's the only context that these numbers exists. And the only context that matters.

 

[nightwind1]

Edited

 

[BigJake]

What context?

The context of who's being sampled, how large the sample is, what the critical environment was like and whether it was likelier to give certain movies lighter or rougher treatment, what the audience environment and culture was like, how accurately aggregator models can reflect all of those differences across thirty years, stuff like that. The sort of things that would make comparisons meaningful and worthwhile.

 

[Nerys Myk]

WOK is a highly regarded Trek film. To defend STID and diss WOK is ludacris. Cumberbatch should have played a "butt head" from Talos IV instead.

The is the part where Rotten Tomatoes comes into play

TWOK:

Tomatometer 90% (All Critics) 71% (Top Critics)

Audience 90%

STID

Tomatometer; 87% (All Critics) 82% (Top Critics)

Audience 90%

Those numbers are close, but WOK has aged well. STID will not. The STID people are on the wrong side of history. lol

Check back in 30 years.

 

[Dukhat]

So that makes sense to you as to why he acts differently in TWOK, but the explanation in STID as to why he acts differently doesn't?

The character in STID is incoherent and not very compelling to me, I don't really give a shit for the explanation if those things aren't there. IMO Cumberbatch would've been better served by having his own villain whose motives and actions made some actual sense.

He was being manipulated with the threat of his family being killed. Makes sense to me.

 

[BigJake]

So that makes sense to you as to why he acts differently in TWOK, but the explanation in STID as to why he acts differently doesn't?

The character in STID is incoherent and not very compelling to me, I don't really give a shit for the explanation if those things aren't there. IMO Cumberbatch would've been better served by having his own villain whose motives and actions made some actual sense.

He was being manipulated with the threat of his family being killed. Makes sense to me.

Good on you then.