• 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!

My Gripes with STID!

I am not sure they did. They replaced the initial weirdness by another kind, but I wouldn't call that tone it down.
 
One of the most pleasing things about STID was how clearly familiar with not only TWOK but also "Space Seed" the writers were - the portrayal of Khan's essential character was consistent with both, and spot on. :)
 
One of the most pleasing things about STID was how clearly familiar with not only TWOK but also "Space Seed" the writers were - the portrayal of Khan's essential character was consistent with both, and spot on. :)

I am not sure. There aren't many details that STID Kahn has in common with the other one. In fact I don't see anything more than his genetically enhanced status. And even that is differently displayed.
 
He seemed more to me like a more generic supervillainesque baddie on whom the Khan identity was grafted last-minute, but of course mileage varies.
 
One of the most pleasing things about STID was how clearly familiar with not only TWOK but also "Space Seed" the writers were - the portrayal of Khan's essential character was consistent with both, and spot on. :)

This.

He seemed more to me like a more generic supervillainesque baddie on whom the Khan identity was grafted last-minute, but of course mileage varies.

Are you talking about Khan in TWOK or STID? :p

:rolleyes:

The writers debated using Khan. Not all wanted to, but they decided to go with it, anyway. To me, STID Khan combined elements of Khan from both "Space Seed" and TWOK. Amog other things, he was coldly calculating and heartless (SS), he was bad-tempered (SS and TWOK), he manipulated people (SS), and he was being driven crazy by passions and events (TWOK, already happened, only got worse, was getting there in STID).

In TWOK, he came up against an older and less confident Kirk. The conflict led to Kirk regaining his confidence and sense of worth.

In STID, he came up against a young and inexperienced Kirk too cocky and egotistical for the captain's chair, and that conflict led to Kirk growing and maturing as a leader.

They will never know it, but Khan was essential to the Kirks in both universes. It's a nice touch, and a great reason to make it Khan in STID, at least in my opinion.
 
I don't see where you get that right track thing from TWOK. Kahn was indirectly responsible for Spock's death. That's pretty much all the impact he had on Kirk's future.
 
I see where he's getting it. I don't share the sentiment but I see where he's getting it.

Puts me in mind of:

71aad3c7-ee5d-4bc3-abce-ea9c29cbc94f.jpg
 
I don't see where you get that right track thing from TWOK. Kahn was indirectly responsible for Spock's death. That's pretty much all the impact he had on Kirk's future.

This (like STID) was all about Kirk and his growth as a person. The loss of Spock was the price Kirk paid for all those years he thought he was invincible. He learned the ultimate lesson, everyone is mortal and vulnerable, and no-win situations are real. Yes, Spock is dead, but at the end of the movie, Kirk still says, "I feel young." He'll mourn his friend and probably feel a bit lost without him, but he's also rejuvenated and back in the captain's chair with his confidence restored and the addition of a little more wisdom.
 
I don't see where you get that right track thing from TWOK. Kahn was indirectly responsible for Spock's death. That's pretty much all the impact he had on Kirk's future.

This (like STID) was all about Kirk and his growth as a person. The loss of Spock was the price Kirk paid for all those years he thought he was invincible. He learned the ultimate lesson, everyone is mortal and vulnerable, and no-win situations are real. Yes, Spock is dead, but at the end of the movie, Kirk still says, "I feel young." He'll mourn is friend, but he's also rejuvenated and back in the captain's chair with his usual swagger and a little more wisdom.

I don't know about that.
 
I don't see where you get that right track thing from TWOK. Kahn was indirectly responsible for Spock's death. That's pretty much all the impact he had on Kirk's future.

This (like STID) was all about Kirk and his growth as a person. The loss of Spock was the price Kirk paid for all those years he thought he was invincible. He learned the ultimate lesson, everyone is mortal and vulnerable, and no-win situations are real. Yes, Spock is dead, but at the end of the movie, Kirk still says, "I feel young." He'll mourn is friend, but he's also rejuvenated and back in the captain's chair with his usual swagger and a little more wisdom.

I don't know about that.

It doesn't make sense? How? Consider this dialog between Kirk and his son right before the bridge scene ended the movie:

DAVID: Lieutenant Saavik was right. You never have faced death.
KIRK: Not like this, no. I haven't faced death, I've cheated death. I tricked my way out of death, and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing.

That's quite a learning moment, and it only could've happened with such a tragic loss. Throughout the conflict, Kirk realizes he's living his best destiny, and grows back into the job. However fate teaches him one final lesson about hubris, and takes Spock from him. Anyone can lose, even the great Captain Kirk. Now, Kirk knows this. He wasn't as good at controlling fate as he thought. He was just lucky -- up to now.
 
He seemed more to me like a more generic supervillainesque baddie on whom the Khan identity was grafted last-minute, but of course mileage varies.

Are you talking about Khan in TWOK or STID? :p

Something is wrong with this picture, and it is Cumberbatch's face.

Khan2.jpg

Hmm. He looks a little like a young Dick Van Dyke to me. It's the long face and chin, I think. And the grin.
 
And stress induced warp drive, seriously, it works faster the more the crew are shitting themselves over something. At least the nuWarp drive is super fast regardless.
 
I get you want to be all "science" about it, but in the long run either the reviewers like it or didn't.

You know, I don't even need it to be purely "science," I would just like some level of honest comparability and I don't think it's there, is all.
You go to a movie. You watch the movie. Either you like it or don't. You share that opinion. That was the same in 1982 and 2013. All that other stuff doesn't really matter when you spend two hours in a theatre, in your living room or where ever you're watching.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top