The 4 years war is from FASA, Axanar adopted/changed the concept, it has nothing to do with them.
TUC - not aged well
- Thread starter Computer Voice
- Start date
The 4 years war is from FASA, Axanar adopted/changed the concept, it has nothing to do with them.
That's something I've been wondering. According to canon, which war came first - Romulan or Klingon?
Whatever happened to exploration, and adventure in Star Trek? Fanboys don't have any original ideas to bring to the table other than war. I don't mind a battle in an episode but geez this war stuff is sooo cliched.
I've heard that lament before, but what is wrong with a film depicting the Four Years War? Star Trek is about exploration...of the human condition, and war is a part of that. Is Trek solely supposed to be about exploring space? Was it ever just about exploring space solely?
To each his own I suppose, but I would like to see the Four Years War. I think it would be pretty cool. Trek often threatens or 'promises' conflict but then avoids or averts it, perhaps to tout the importance of reason and diplomacy, but I also have to wonder due to budget constraints.
Then call it something else. That is not Star Trek.
Martial conflict??? Is that something you just made up, or was that something mentioned on DS9? If so, I can understand why you have such confusions on your diction.
All the sets were pretty claustrophobic: a redressed crews quarters with a bunk bed {bunk beds?/) A galley?? Why do they even need a galley? The Starfleet briefing room was basically a table with some Porsche lamps.
I enjoyed the second unit photography of the Alaskan glacier and it did help the endless cave scenes.
That the brinksmanship of two powers close to war wasn't mentioned is part of my issue with it. We didn't need battles, but maybe small units of Klingons or UFP moving into place, like chess pieces.
It might be a bit redundant, but I recommend checking a dictionary if you don't understand the meaning of the word martial.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/martial
Last edited:
"Martial conflict" is a legitimate phrase that has been used in academic literature in relation to warfare. Where's the confusion in that?
As for the question that was actually posed... yes, war most definitely has a place in Trek. Star Trek is about the human condition. And part of the reality of the human condition is that diplomacy and gestures of friendship don't always work, and there are some genuinely nasty characters out there who commit violence on a large scale. So what do you do when you are forced to face that, and there isn't some highly evolved alien around to step in and prevent such martial conflict?
Kor
As for the question that was actually posed... yes, war most definitely has a place in Trek. Star Trek is about the human condition. And part of the reality of the human condition is that diplomacy and gestures of friendship don't always work, and there are some genuinely nasty characters out there who commit violence on a large scale. So what do you do when you are forced to face that, and there isn't some highly evolved alien around to step in and prevent such martial conflict?
Kor
Isn't there one in every movie, with the exception of The Voyage Home???
The dream of every Star Trek movie...
I have other issues with the movie..so...I decided to watch the bluray version of it that I have--uprezzed on 4K. yes, it does look super crisp, though there is some graininess in the FX.
I feel the movie doesn't have the same look in Super 35 and I always hated the James Cameron used this film format also. Compare the next STNG movie to this one and the effect is pretty amazing, Generations--for all it's faults--looks fantastic.
Some things I still like: The opening scene. I can never just watch it once..bravo ILM. The second unit cinematography. The K'Tinga looks great, though not as awe inspiring as in STTMP. All those Shakespearean actors as Klingons. The assassination scene on Gorkon's ship.
The extras, mostly or ALL ported over from DVD are fantastic on the bluray. There is some insight here.
I dislike how the Enterprise model is shot here, it's very TV like (tv fx of the time). The STNG FX often looked better.
I feel the movie doesn't have the same look in Super 35 and I always hated the James Cameron used this film format also. Compare the next STNG movie to this one and the effect is pretty amazing, Generations--for all it's faults--looks fantastic.
Some things I still like: The opening scene. I can never just watch it once..bravo ILM. The second unit cinematography. The K'Tinga looks great, though not as awe inspiring as in STTMP. All those Shakespearean actors as Klingons. The assassination scene on Gorkon's ship.
The extras, mostly or ALL ported over from DVD are fantastic on the bluray. There is some insight here.
I dislike how the Enterprise model is shot here, it's very TV like (tv fx of the time). The STNG FX often looked better.
The dream of every Star Trek movie...
Ha. Sad but true. But I consider it like an obsession. And Into Darkness just said screw it, we'll just bring Khan back.
I at least enjoyed the exploration of Khan in his prime, taking down a squad of Klingons, and S31 special operatives-could have done with the head squashing thing.
But, the larger point remains that, as you said, there is an obsession with TWOK that overshadows the rest.
Khan in his prime was Montalban in "Space Seed" for me. Yes, in Into Darkness it was cool to see Khan unload, even if it was a bit overdone. That being said, Cumberbatch's cold fury never jibed with Montalban's take on Khan IMO. Montalban was more charismatic. Montalban was more likable. He was a seducer. I can't see Cumberbatch's Khan seducing Lt. McGivers for example.
Granted one could argue that Cumberkhan was reacting to his treatment by Admiral Marcus whereas Montalban's Khan awoke in a different situation and used different tactics. But still it didn't work for me. I did like the Kirk-Khan team up, that wasn't expected. I also liked how Admiral Marcus was the real villain, though I just thought about it, did that diminish Khan further that he wasn't the main villain in his ''own" film?
I also felt that they were trying to have both "Space Seed" and "TWOK" Khan all in one in Cumberbatch's performance so it was a much shorter window to see the devolution of Khan's character than we got with Montalban. In any event, I thought Malik from Enterprise's Augment arc was a better homage to Khan than what we got in Into Darkness.
And to keep this on the Klingons. I liked the Into Darkness look for them, from foreheads to clothing. I didn't care for the ships. They were too ramshackle, for lack of a better word. I also don't think they were badass enough. No way Kirk and crew should've made it to Qo'noS so easily, and also how could the Enterprise be on the edge of Klingon space without a bevy of Birds-of-Prey or battle cruisers encircling them? To me Into Darkness made the Klingons too weak. Into Darkness Klingons were no comparison to any Klingons in the TOS films.
Granted one could argue that Cumberkhan was reacting to his treatment by Admiral Marcus whereas Montalban's Khan awoke in a different situation and used different tactics. But still it didn't work for me. I did like the Kirk-Khan team up, that wasn't expected. I also liked how Admiral Marcus was the real villain, though I just thought about it, did that diminish Khan further that he wasn't the main villain in his ''own" film?
I also felt that they were trying to have both "Space Seed" and "TWOK" Khan all in one in Cumberbatch's performance so it was a much shorter window to see the devolution of Khan's character than we got with Montalban. In any event, I thought Malik from Enterprise's Augment arc was a better homage to Khan than what we got in Into Darkness.
And to keep this on the Klingons. I liked the Into Darkness look for them, from foreheads to clothing. I didn't care for the ships. They were too ramshackle, for lack of a better word. I also don't think they were badass enough. No way Kirk and crew should've made it to Qo'noS so easily, and also how could the Enterprise be on the edge of Klingon space without a bevy of Birds-of-Prey or battle cruisers encircling them? To me Into Darkness made the Klingons too weak. Into Darkness Klingons were no comparison to any Klingons in the TOS films.
Similar threads
