TWoK or ST'09....

[Kelso]

The point about McCoy's nascent relationship with Spock is valid and well taken. IMO, 007's relationship with M in Casino Royale suffered from a similar problem... there really should have been consequences for a newly minted 00 breaking in to M's private home, private files, etc. Such is the problem with showing the origins of such a familiar character, I suppose. The audience has certain expectations.

I agree about the revamped Uhura, as well. You'd hardly expect this version to proclaim, "Captain, I'm frightened!"

Also, are you guys going to leave us in suspense or will Kegg reveal his secret identity?

 

[Kegg]

Kegg is Kegek.

Hold the presses, I know. I had a Talaxian avatar, if that helps anyone who doesn't remember who I am.

Oh, and I remember that other essay, too. My only problem with that one was that he was taking aim at Alien, one of my all-time favorites. (The story is, he was pissed at Scott et al., for freezing him out of Blade Runner).

He didn't like the then-current script for the movie that made it more of an actioner, either. But yeah, I love Alien also.

More on topic, and related to Uhura: In both The Wrath of Khan and the new movie, Spock has a female star pupil - Saavik in the case of TWoK. Which character would people find more interesting, as themselves or in their relationship to Spock?

I'd have to think about that one, but I'm honestly leaning towards Uhura. Spock's relationship to Saavik is very one-way - she's the more direct, blunt Vulcan unused to this human nonsense, Spock gives her some pointers and such. There's no equivalent to the moment Uhura tries to give Spock emotional support.

 

[STR]

This wasn't even close. ST2 has all the action, but includes a better, well rounded villian. Okay, let me rephrase that, ST2 has a villain with a mind. I still don't get the whole "A star blew up my home world, Spock couldn't stop it, so I'm going to blow up the Federation" thing.

But, both are important to the legacy because both movies saved the franchise. If handled poorly STII would have been the last ST ever. TMP ran way, way over its already huge budget, and we all know what Nemesis did...

 

[Captain Pike]

*shrug* You can't get much more of a cardboard cut-out villain than Khan, can you? All that guy needed was a moustache to twirl..

 

[Brutal Strudel]

*shrug* You can't get much more of a cardboard cut-out villain than Khan, can you? All that guy needed was a moustache to twirl..

Actually, you can: Nero.

 

[BillJ]

The Wrath of Khan.

I actually like Star Trek 2009 very much, but some things just throw me completely out of the story.

- Sending a 160 year old Ambassador who hasn't seen active duty in God knows how long to save the 'universe'?

- Red Matter. Not the element itself (love things that go BOOM!), just the fact that this stuff is so potent that a drop of it can cause a star to collapse on itself and you send Spock out with a beach ball sized container of it... ...deep into the heart of enemy territory.

 

[STR]

*shrug* You can't get much more of a cardboard cut-out villain than Khan, can you? All that guy needed was a moustache to twirl..

Actually, you can: Nero.

Well, to be fair, we really don't know that. The guy has what? 5 lines? Ru'affo had more than that. Eric Bana definitely had an idea of this guy, and you get glimpses of it, but it seems most of the character was left on the editing floor.

Still, he's no Khan.

The Wrath of Khan.

I actually like Star Trek 2009 very much, but some things just throw me completely out of the story.

- Sending a 160 year old Ambassador who hasn't seen active duty in God knows how long to save the 'universe'?

Not the first choice, but John Logan already killed Data and Rick Berman & Co. killed Kirk.

 

[Kegg]

*shrug* You can't get much more of a cardboard cut-out villain than Khan, can you? All that guy needed was a moustache to twirl..

Actually, you can: Nero.

Well, to be fair, we really don't know that. The guy has what? 5 lines? Ru'affo had more than that.

Nero has more lines than that. In fact he's got plenty of screentime to establish himself as a consistently shallow villain. Eric Bana's hammy performance really doesn't help - even if we don't care about Khan's wife, it's quite clear from Montalban's performance that he cared and her death set him a little on edge.

You don't get that from Bana. At all. He's just an obsessive, gibbering loon who's there to spout out bad guy movie dialogue.

Besides, saying that a character's better with the stuff they cut from the movie included should never be an excuse - one should judge a character based exactly on what is left in the film.

Still, he's no Khan.

Quite.

 

[Cryogenic]

Exactly! It was an unthinking attempt to give us Star Trek's Greatest Hits (also on this double album "Creepy Crawly Mind Control," "Sulu with a Sword" and "Kirk Bangs a Green Girl")

Don't forget:

"Kirk's Fistfight"
"Red Shirt Death"
"Phasers To Stun"
"T-T-T-Time Travel"
"Revenging Romulan (Feat. Superweapon)"
"Dammit, Jim/Jim!"
"Vet Wagina"
"Giving Her All She's Got"
"Space, The Final Frontier"

Oh, and a quote about Spock from Phil Dick? Are you serious, man? I think I just officially went gay.

(Be afraid. Be very afraid.)

I agree. That Phil K. Dick quotation is, well ... fascinating.

 

[Michael]

Well, to be fair, we really don't know that. The guy has what? 5 lines? Ru'affo had more than that.

Nero has more lines than that. In fact he's got plenty of screentime to establish himself as a consistently shallow villain. Eric Bana's hammy performance really doesn't help - even if we don't care about Khan's wife, it's quite clear from Montalban's performance that he cared and her death set him a little on edge.

You don't get that from Bana. At all. He's just an obsessive, gibbering loon who's there to spout out bad guy movie dialogue.

While I absolutely agree with the point you are making (as a villain Nero doesn't hold up very well compared to Khan), I don't think it's just Eric Bana's performance which is to blame. He was always a capable enough actor in everything I saw him in. Someone in the Trek XI forum once timed Nero's screentime, which amounted to merely 5-6 minutes! I'm not really convinced that it's possible to establish an adequate backstory and motivation for the antagonist in such a short time. So it's either the writer's fault or something the director decided.

As for the original question: I liked Star Trek (2009), but it doesn't even come close to the awesomeness of The Wrath of Khan, which is easily my favorite Trek movie ...

 

[STR]

Besides, saying that a character's better with the stuff they cut from the movie included should never be an excuse - one should judge a character based exactly on what is left in the film.

Well, that's somewhat of a matter of opinion. I think that what makes a better villain is a different question than how good a movie is. When judging a movie, you stick to just what's in the cut. With a villain, or any other character for that matter, I (personally) give a little weight to cut scenes.

I see you point, it is valid. Maybe I'm just being generous, as this was the second Trek movie in a row I disliked. (Side note: Nemesis has a lot in common with Star Trek) I have a fear that it's taken a turn I won't follow.

I don't think it's just Eric Bana's performance which is to blame. He was always a capable enough actor in everything I saw him in. Someone in the Trek XI forum once timed Nero's screentime, which amounted to merely 5-6 minutes! I'm not really convinced that it's possible to establish an adequate backstory and motivation for the antagonist in such a short time. So it's either the writer's fault or something the director decided..

I agree. You get glimpses of what was in Bana's head; small peeks at a very unique take on the typical Star Trek enemy. But...cut.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

"Vet Wagina"

But had they given us this, it would have been the Best. Trek. Ever.

I mean, Vejur himself would have come back for a gander at that.

 

[Kegg]

While I absolutely agree with the point you are making (as a villain Nero doesn't hold up very well compared to Khan), I don't think it's just Eric Bana's performance which is to blame. He was always a capable enough actor in everything I saw him in. Someone in the Trek XI forum once timed Nero's screentime, which amounted to merely 5-6 minutes! I'm not really convinced that it's possible to establish an adequate backstory and motivation for the antagonist in such a short time. So it's either the writer's fault or something the director decided.

I'd agree part of it is the writer's fault, given that Nero's motivations do occasionally seem fuzzy, and he would have benefited also from more screentime. I do think the amount of screentime given was enough for the villain to work, though - it's worth remembering Khan also doesn't have a lot of time in his titular movie. Nero didn't have enough time to be Khan, but with a little better writing and performance he could have been an adequate villain.

However, part of the blame does rest with Eric Bana's delivery. I agree I've liked him in everything I've seen him in - especially Munich - but his delivery of lines like 'Captain Kirk was a great man, but that was another life!' is... well... completely ridiculous and over the top. Are the lines also over the top? Granted, but the way his mouth is moving it's close to literally chewing the scenery.

However, we did get his tragic backstory, but Nero seems petulant rather than torn about his planet being blown up and his own family's death. This material could have been played with a little more sympathy to Nero - on Bana's part if not the audience's, much like Montalban really slipped into the Khan role. Bana is crazy because he's a movie villain, Khan is... crazy with his delusions of genius and his personal hardships and his obsession with revenge and Montalban seethes all of that. And that's stuff I got from the actors played the roles, really.

 

[TheGodBen]

Someone in the Trek XI forum once timed Nero's screentime, which amounted to merely 5-6 minutes! I'm not really convinced that it's possible to establish an adequate backstory and motivation for the antagonist in such a short time. So it's either the writer's fault or something the director decided.

That was Silent Bob, and it really was quite shocking when I found that out:

I decided to do some timing when viewing the movie again, to see if GodBen was correct in saying time was wasted. Yes, i'm just that sad.

Combined, the pointless Car and monster chase scenes took up 4 mins 57 seconds. Now this doesnt seem like a lot, why its only five minutes of screen time, nothing major. Except when you consider the following fact:

Nero has only 5 mins 31 seconds of screentime. The villain of the film, Spock's nemesis, only recieves 34 more seconds of screen time than Nokia and Clover jnr. Would it not have made more sense to devote those minutes wasted on product placement and excuses for more toys to developing Nero as a character instead?

I started timing whenever any part of him appeared on-screen. So 5 mins 31 includes everything from shots of his hands smacking Kirk around, to the back of his head when he is looking at a viewscreen, so i was pretty generous with what i counted as screentime. I even added a few seconds for an unclear bald head that may or may not have been Nero.

Nero has only 5 mins 31 seconds of screentime.

Whoa, now that is shocking. I would have thought he was in at least 15 minutes, but only 5?

I'm sad too, so I decided to time the dinner scene between Picard and Shinzon in Nemesis and that clocked up to 5 minutes and 25 seconds. For those of you who have erased that whole film from your memory, that scene was almost entirely back-story and character development for Shinzon; Shinzon had more development in one scene than Nero had in an entire movie. This is official now, Shinzon is a better developed villain than Nero, unlikely though that might be.

 

[Michael]

^ You know, it's somewhat weird to have both of you in the same thread, Kegek and GodBen. Both of you are very eloquent and funny Irishmen. And you also have a lot in common when it comes to Trek (at least as far as I can tell). For a while I actually thought GodBen was a dual of Kegek.

 

[TheGodBen]

I'm not the dual, I'm the original, but in this case the original came after those that copied him.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

I love both equally, so that's my vote.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

TWOK is one of the best sequels of all time, and one of the truly great movies of all time. Trek XI.... Not so much.

 

[Chrisisall]

TWOK is one of the best sequels of all time, and one of the truly great movies of all time. Trek XI.... Not so much.

I *just* watched TWOK (the recently released theatrical version on DVD) & I must concur. Trek XI is just fun, nothing more.

 

[JarodRussell]

TWOK is one of the best sequels of all time, and one of the truly great movies of all time. Trek XI.... Not so much.

I *just* watched TWOK (the recently released theatrical version on DVD) & I must concur. Trek XI is just fun, nothing more.

As the Klingons put it: "You may discard the body, it is now just an empty shell."