Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.


Grade the movie...

  1. A+

  2. A

  3. A-

  4. B+

  5. B

  6. B-

  7. C+

  8. C

  9. C-

  10. D+

  11. D

  12. D-

  13. F

  1. Commishsleer

    Commishsleer Commodore Commodore

    Apr 19, 2013
    Last place in Australia to get the NBN
    IMO the Khan in TOS was a lot less dangerous than the Khan in nuTrek. In TOS in the byplay where the crew were teasing Spock about the great qualities of Khan, it was shown that he liked to control the 'sheep' not destroy them. In Space Seed it didn't sound like Khan was really out to destroy anything just gain power over the Earth from his 'brothers'.
    I don't know what happened to this nuKhan, perhaps Marcus tortured him or perhaps it is just nuTrek making Khan 'up-to-date'. Do you think Kirk would have let Khan go in TOS if he thought Khan was out to destroy/subjugate the Earth, even in TWOK he didn't seem to have that agenda?
  2. TheMurph

    TheMurph Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jul 18, 2005
    I've only watched the movie once, so my rating may change, but I gave it a B -. For me it was a solid A till the last part following Kirk's death. It's hard to put my finger on it, but at that point it started sinking for me. It felt like it did not need the chase scene. I'm going to need to watch it again to nail it down. :lol:
  3. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Jul 2, 2009
    In this day and age there is an inflationary use of the word terrorism. For the media, as soon as a bomb is involved, it's terrorism. And that's really not the correct definition.

    And morale is defined by the victor. We applaud everyone who deserted the German Army during World War II, but the USA is punishing the guy who leaked war crimes to Wikileaks. Same hypocrisy in the world of terrorists, or dare I say, freedom fighters? Some we want because they attack our enemies, some we don't want because they attack us. That both sides have the very same reasons doesn't matter. We are the good guys after all.
  4. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Mar 8, 2001
    Except when Kirk defeats his attempt to take over Enterprise - at that point, Khan heads to Engineering and wires the ship to explode.

    Just as, in TWOK, in his last moments he activates the Genesis Device to destroy Kirk.

    Just as in STID, when defeated, he targets Starfleet with his disintegrating ship to cause as much damage as he can.

    "I'll say one thing for him, he's consistent."
  5. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Feb 12, 2011
    Taking up space
    Yeah, but, let's not lose sight of the fact that, when the Enterprise was dispatched to go after Harrison, Kirk and crew did not know that.

    My point there was that, for a significant part of the movie, our heroes were regarding Harrison as a terrorist, and, to the best of their knowledge, it was correct for them to regard him that way. Contrary to the impression one might have from reading your assertion that Khan wasn't really a terrorist, the film's narrative hardly fails to associate Khan with terrorism.
  6. T'Bonz

    T'Bonz Romulan Curmudgeon Administrator

    Apr 1, 2000
    Across the Neutral Zone
    I think they should have just had him be John Harrison. Other than a wink and nod to old school fans, having him be Khan was unnecessary. Had someone else been in charge other than Khan, it would have made for a more interesting twist, imo.
  7. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    May 19, 2013
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Obviously. I thought we were just talking about whether he was an actual terrorist.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2013
  8. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Jul 26, 2001
    United Kingdom
    You know, I've been inspired to go back and watch some of the older

    Some of the nitpicks you could make with Wrath of Khan are bigger than the ones you could do with STID. It's like people just ignore them though.
  9. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Jan 30, 2001
    It's the power of those rose-tinted nostalgia glasses at work. :techman:
  10. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    Magic torpedo good.
    Magic blood bad.

    Pointless and contextually empty scream good.
    Not strictly necessary but contextually consistent scream bad.

    White man bad guy good.
    White man bad guy bad.

    I could go on…

    (I love TWOK, incidentally)
  11. flavaflav

    flavaflav Captain Captain

    May 21, 2004

    The good... Kirk & Spock are once again excellently done. The rest of the Enterprise crew, when they got any screen time, was fun to watch. Most of the design and fx are good. Nice addition of Section 31 and liked the "Khaaaaaaaan!!!" scream. Seems the 5 year mission is now, hopefully, where things go.

    The bad... I guessed pretty much the entire story, who the villain would be, and the exact ending months ago. There were no surprises at all and that made just about every important moment a big yawn.

    Cumberbatch is a fricken wooden log on screen. No charisma at all. Ricardo's Khan is way better, even though his is more poorly written. Khan2 actually seemed like a genetically enhanced villain, where Khan1 was a mustache twister. But Ricardo had so much damn charisma he came across as a total badass. Also, it's simply stupid having a whiter than white English dude play a middle eastern guy.

    There was no point to having the blonde twit in the movie at all. Her screen time should have been given to others who sorely needed it, namely Chekov, Scotty & Bones... who served no purpose other than delivering one liners.

    The entire intro sequence is one big plot hole and a better method could have been written, or just a simple rewrite, to get Kirk demoted.

    Klingon helmets..... ugh. The entire Kronos sequence was a let down.

    Worthless Nimoy cameo.

    It's a decent popcorn flick, but like the first movie the villain is lame and overall story lacking.
  12. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Feb 12, 2011
    Taking up space
    Well, it was in the context of discussing whether showing cultural sensitivity was appropriate. In that context, pointing out that it has no zing to say he's not really a terrorist isn't off the subject. I'm sorta surprised, if you missed that.
  13. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    May 19, 2013
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    I didn't. I just got lost in the conversation. :D
  14. LS650

    LS650 Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Aug 5, 2010
    I've seen it in both 2D and again in 3D IMax.

    I give it a B+. Pretty entertaining flick and better than most of the trek movies, but with some flaws and with room for improvement.

    I still think TWOK sits at the top of the heap.
  15. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    May 10, 2005
    The visitor's bullpen
    Considering what he did to a fourth of Earth during the Eugenics Wars, I'd consider Khan very MUCH a terrorist.
  16. Locutus of Bored

    Locutus of Bored KNEEL BEFORE RODD! Moderator

    Jul 5, 2004
    Incinerating You With Gene's Vision
    :wtf: Well, that's certainly different from what most people have said.

    Khan's never been identified as Middle Eastern. McGivers guessed he was Sikh (and the name Singh is consistent with that), and depicted him as such; which is a religion, not a race, though it's primarily made up of people from South Asia. He most likely conquered the Middle East along with South, Southeast, East, and Central Asia during the time he ruled 1/4th of the Earth.

    Plus, as has already been mentioned, Ricardo Montalban was a white man of European descent born in Mexico. They gave him some skin darkening makeup in TOS but none in TWoK.

    Chekov was appointed Chief Engineer and repaired the ship's sabotaged engines, Scotty made a morally courageous stand and then prevented the destruction of the Enterprise by sabotaging the enemy ship, and Bones discovered the Augment cryotubes and saved Kirk's life with a blood transfusion from Khan. Yeah, it would have been nice to see more of each, but they hardly served "no purpose."

    Explain how it is a "plot hole." I can get not liking it, but that doesn't necessarily make it a plot hole.
  17. indranee

    indranee Vice Admiral Admiral

    Nov 20, 2003
    Those two bolded sections pretty much nullified your whole review to me.

    For the umpteenth time, Khan was NOT middle eastern.
  18. Kegg

    Kegg Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Sep 24, 2009
    That's what most people I've talked to have felt. He's just scowly angry man, but granted, the script didn't give him a lot to work with.

    Liked the movie (though slightly less than '09's), but like the last one the villain really was one of the weakest things about it.
  19. Gepard

    Gepard Vice Admiral Admiral

    Oct 20, 2007
    I feel the same way. He's just there, on screen, being all British and monotone. It's not enough to really hurt the movie, though, which may be why the folks who like the movie aren't complaining much about it.
  20. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Aug 23, 2001
    Full of hot air.
    Yeah. Performance quality and charisma are mutually exclusive.

    I think Cumby gave a fantastic performance, but his Khan was no where near as charismatic as Monty's.