|
Not a Star Trek fan, but i enjoyed the movie. Spock and Khan really stole the show, although I felt like everyone was generally well cast.
I really liked everything, except the + Show Spoiler +FUCKING CHEESY ASS ENDING. Sure, I should've seen it coming, because you can't really kill Captain Kirk. However, I felt like the death scene was very well done, and struck a nerve with me. For a minute, I was silently praising the film for its ballsy nature (killing the good guy, yet still having a somber and satisfying ending)... however that quickly went away. As soon as I saw the porcupine, my eyes rolled severely. last 10 minutes.
7.4/10 would watch again.
|
On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:07 Hryul wrote:On June 04 2013 02:07 sCCrooked wrote:On June 03 2013 22:18 Hryul wrote:On June 03 2013 10:32 sCCrooked wrote:On June 03 2013 07:21 Hryul wrote:On June 03 2013 04:15 sCCrooked wrote: Khan was a genetically modified warlord of the genetically modified being identified as the most superior hundreds of years before the incident with Kirk's father. It was at least 2 centuries if memory serves. Why the HELL did events hundreds of years after they set themselves adrift on the Botany Bay get changed by that black hole romulan atrocity?
Sorry guys but you can't legitimize this with "ST2009 had a new storyline start". This doesn't work.
However even if I were to overlook this MASSIVE GLARING HOLE that makes all this literally impossible there's still the Khan character itself that was poorly done in this movie. Khan was supposed to make you feel helpless. You needed to feel the weight of his intellect, how he got the jump on kirk and just relentlessly hunted him. The weight of the intelligence and the ability was not felt at all in this story. There were no incredibly ingenious traps or references to things you might have to look up because they're a bit over your head. This is the very base, the core of the character Trekkies called "Khan" and a huge part of why they almost unanimously chose him as the best Trek villain ever. The story began to change about 20 years before J.T. Kirk got his feet on the enterprise. Given that the Botany Bay has no warp drive it is likely they didn't get that far from the pov of a civ with warp drive. So there is enough time for Marcus to find Khan, abuse him for his powers and Khan going rogue. Or did I get anything wrong? PS: Afaik also Kirk found the Botany Bay by chance, same as Marcus. This is not an acceptable explanation either for several reasons. It still ignores the glaring problem of events hundreds of years in the past being affected by something that hasn't happened and indeed won't happen yet. I'm no temporal mechanics expert, but from a my understanding, this is impossible. Even without warp drive, the S.S. Botany Bay was sent into space along with other ships in a deep cryogenic freeze. It was discovered by Kirk almost around the same time as this movie was supposed to take place but a long way from earth out in deep space. Hence it would mean that the Botany Bay was still somewhere in deep space long away from where Carol Marcus would have any business whatsoever. Its probably the most glaring hole in the whole story and yet I don't see any sites or lists of "what went wrong" in this movie. The Romulan event would have no impact on Khan's lifetime in any way shape or form. The only way for it to make sense is if they just had re-made a newer version of Wrath of Khan with the same story points and the same doomsday weapon being fought over. What we have is an atrocity that can't possibly make sense and ultimately destroys the single greatest villain in all of Star Trek into a generic unimpressive "bad guy". Imagine if the 2nd new-age Batman movie came out with the Joker being portrayed without any sort of personality traits that made him "insane" and no sort of make-up whatsoever in any scenes. This is basically what they have done to the Trek community faithful to them as long as since the 60s. Kirk finds the Botany 2267, Marcus finds the Botany before 2259. So there are at least 8 years difference. I still don't know what exactly the "big glaring plothole" should be? Somewhere in the movie Adm. Marcus said that they send out ships to explore space for new tools (?) to fight the Klingon menace. It seems like someone on the ship Nero destroyed altered the course of one ship that found Khan. Also Carol Marcus got involved when her father refused to give her access to the torpedoes. I'm not sure if she was aware of (the nature of) Khan. Given the few scenes she had I would conclude that her main interest were the torpedoes. Honestly, I was waiting for him to say "Activate Self Destruct Sequence" and watch a giant fucking warp core explosion on the surface of the Earth. That would have been a pretty nice end. I'm glad that they didn't do that because iirc they always have the antimatter explosions far too small. (except on one TOS episode where Kirk lures a monster into an antimatter trap) Honestly I'm quite baffled that you don't understand what the plothole is when you yourself just explained it rather eloquently. Read your first paragraph and I couldn't really have said it better. In the first one yeah they had weird ear-bugs or whatever but it set up the story! A main bridge character was affected which started the whole "its personal" feeling between Kirk and Khan. When you have such a deep rivalry and you're supposed to feel someone who is at the very least comparable to "The Joker" from Batman, you really have to take a step back and realize we all got a big steaming pile of shit when you make comparisons to what's considered "good". How are we supposed to feel intimidated by someone we haven't witnessed torturing masses and enjoying it? Now we don't even know how the hell the timeline got altered allowing Khan to even show up! Isn't the ORIGIN of how your villain and his entire army got out of cryogenic stasis a rather important plot hole to just not have shown in great detail? The best part of the Wrath of Khan was it was in fact a sequel. For those of you who don't know, there was an episode in the original series where Khan was revived after being found by the Enterprise and after they found out who he was, he went about attempting to conquer the ship and so he and his people were marooned in a system called "Ceti Alpha" which had a good class M planet on it for them to live on. That planet was destroyed and Khan lost everything except a handful of his people between that and settling on the very harsh neighboring world. There was loss and he felt hatred for decades on Kirk and Starfleet for it. This is a great origin story and starts everything nicely. Kirk and Khan are identified as clear rivals and if you want more on their past, you could just go to the episode in the original series to see more of the origin of their hatred for each other. There's torture from the bad guy in what he sees as the beginning of payment of Kirk's debt to him for causing his fate and if affects someone in the main cast and it becomes into more personal as Carol Marcus and Kirk's son come into play. Without all this in there, there's really not enough understanding of the story. As stated before, we should've gotten the Joker, we got yet another generic villain who seems to have simply come from left field without any particular details being given. I'm slowly but surely getting the impression that we are talking about different events. Kirk finds the Botany 2267, Marcus finds the Botany before 2259. Wrath of Khan is set in 2285. This movie isn't meant to replace wrath of Khan but rather the events of their first meeting. Since it is set before the "original timeline" meeting there is no problem in the slightest with consistency. It might be that you didn't like the movie/storytelling/w.e. given your rant about the character of Khan but I fail to see were there is any logical contradiction between the original series and Into Darkness which can't be explained by the alternation of the timeline. It may be explained badly/shortly but I'm quite sure that Khan explains it when he is imprisoned on the Enterprise that Admiral Marcus found him and then woke him up to use him as a weapon(developer) against the Klings. Where is the timeline altered 200 year before that? Edit: Given that Kirk didn't wake up Khan by choice but to safe his life when his stasis chamber failed it is possible that another crew wouldn't wake them up at all but return them to earth within their chambers. There Khan is woken up and forced to work for Adm. Marcus. We're really not at all talking about different events. I must be saying something that's throwing you off then. Kirk finds it in 2267 true, Marcus supposedly happens upon it now, but once again it makes no sense given Marcus's character (if you know her from the original series, you know her field has nothing to do with Khan's people or any research pertaining to it). Now I begion to understand the problem. It is not Dr. Carol Marcus who finds Khan but it is Admiral Alexander Marcus, her father and chief of staff of starfleet. It is also that the Admiral forces Khan to work for him, hence the Admiral showing up in the Dreadnought.
The timeline has changed her research field from biology to "weapons" but she is still a scientist.
I must admit that I fiend it a bit odd that the Admiral grants his daughter access to top secret research but then again we are in a universe were someone not yet graduated can become Captain . . .
On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: I understand this was supposed to be the beginning of their meeting and that's what I mean. Its pathetic The origin story in this movie is virtually nonexistent in all forms. You're not given any reason to think he's vastly superior to our heroes and thus is an incredibly difficult foe to overcome. You're not given any drama like betrayal of a crewmember during Khan's conquest, you're not given lengthy torture scenes where Khan has almost total power and is going about getting what he wants. Without all of these sorts of scenes (and this isn't even Wrath I've referred to, its just the original episode meeting), the Khan character simply does not exist.
So you would have liked the story to be closer to "space seeds". anything else to see here?
On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: As far as I'm concerned, this villain just happened to be named Khan. Its not Khan from the original series and its not Khan from the 1982 sequel movie because this is the only way I can make it work in my head anymore.
As for 200 years in the past, you're still not understanding that Khan is an ancient figure. He's not from the 23rd century at all and therefore lived an entire lifetime long before the Romulan event happened. We're meant to believe that somehow that event changed something that altered a ship's course during missions to intercept it sooner, but we're not given any clear details or the actual awakening in detail. You can't just vaguely toss your villain in there with no past. At the very least, there should've been an extensive explanation period while they're trying to figure out who this guy is so they can beat him but we didn't even get that.
Its not an passable story no matter how you place it. Huge key elements of basic storytelling are missing and it completely dumbs down the Khan character until you have what we got here. A completely generic villain with no particularly interesting or emphasized qualities. Its pathetic because there's no origin story even close to what the original TV episode showed and its missing far too many pieces of the puzzle to be Wrath of Khan either.
I mean ffs you're having to piece this incredibly vague scene together yourself! Shouldn't the movie kind of have done that for you so you wouldn't have to go way out of your way to make it make sense? I don't get your obsession with those details. I give you that the exact circumstances are left in the dark but we know roughly what happened: Some ship found the Botany, brought its passangers to earth were Khan was woken up and forced to work for Admiral Marcus. Of course you could have made some scenes about that but I don't know if it would have advanced the film we were given. He explains most of the things while he is imprisoned on the enterprise and they go on about his desire to save his crew from Admiral Marcus. Also there his background is explained. It's not as lengthy as in space seeds but it is there if you follow closely.
I found some of the plot twists strange (Carol Marcus's access to top secret weapons, Khan's ability to hide his crew members in the torpedoes but not waking them up, the distance between Krones and Earth etc.) but i don't think this is a plothole.
|
I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe.
|
On June 04 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe.
Bombing a place then attacking another place is character development?
|
On June 04 2013 20:53 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe. Bombing a place then attacking another place is character development? Well, maybe character development isn't the right word to use, but the complaint is that he wasn't menacing enough:
On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: I understand this was supposed to be the beginning of their meeting and that's what I mean. Its pathetic The origin story in this movie is virtually nonexistent in all forms. You're not given any reason to think he's vastly superior to our heroes and thus is an incredibly difficult foe to overcome. You're not given any drama like betrayal of a crewmember during Khan's conquest, you're not given lengthy torture scenes where Khan has almost total power and is going about getting what he wants. Without all of these sorts of scenes (and this isn't even Wrath I've referred to, its just the original episode meeting), the Khan character simply does not exist.
|
On June 04 2013 08:09 Wordsmith wrote: Benedict Cumberbatch owned this film! agreed, his acting was amazing also my GF enjoyed this movie, so I can't complain anything at all :D
|
On June 04 2013 20:58 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 20:53 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe. Bombing a place then attacking another place is character development? Well, maybe character development isn't the right word to use, but the complaint is that he wasn't menacing enough: Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: I understand this was supposed to be the beginning of their meeting and that's what I mean. Its pathetic The origin story in this movie is virtually nonexistent in all forms. You're not given any reason to think he's vastly superior to our heroes and thus is an incredibly difficult foe to overcome. You're not given any drama like betrayal of a crewmember during Khan's conquest, you're not given lengthy torture scenes where Khan has almost total power and is going about getting what he wants. Without all of these sorts of scenes (and this isn't even Wrath I've referred to, its just the original episode meeting), the Khan character simply does not exist.
Well it's true. All you're given is that he stole a bunch of weapons, blew up a place and fired for what seemed to take hours at starfleet officers who were apparently dumb enough to meet in a room easily assaulted. (Then somehow there's always a rope in every room whenever a character needs it). Then he+ Show Spoiler + takes out a whole squadron of Klingons (more like zerglings) by just firing around for a while. Don't mistake this for anything that bolsters his character as skilled or strong. He was never really in danger, never really had to be clever or nefarious. He isn't even superficially menacing; he's skinny and lanky, pale and wears some interpretive dance outfit. Through most of the movie he's just pretending to be bad-ass, as if he really does have some kind of power up his sleeve. Then through no skill or guile or wit of his own he + Show Spoiler +escapes from the prison only to the credit of Kirk's stupidity (someone else being awful doesn't make Khan great in some way . I don't know, I could go on and on but I don't want to give you some long annoying rant. I just didn't feel like he was a villainous character.
|
he lolobvious khan's blood thing that will save Kirk spoiled the ending for me
|
On June 04 2013 21:19 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 20:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 04 2013 20:53 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe. Bombing a place then attacking another place is character development? Well, maybe character development isn't the right word to use, but the complaint is that he wasn't menacing enough: On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: I understand this was supposed to be the beginning of their meeting and that's what I mean. Its pathetic The origin story in this movie is virtually nonexistent in all forms. You're not given any reason to think he's vastly superior to our heroes and thus is an incredibly difficult foe to overcome. You're not given any drama like betrayal of a crewmember during Khan's conquest, you're not given lengthy torture scenes where Khan has almost total power and is going about getting what he wants. Without all of these sorts of scenes (and this isn't even Wrath I've referred to, its just the original episode meeting), the Khan character simply does not exist.
Well it's true. All you're given is that he stole a bunch of weapons, blew up a place and fired for what seemed to take hours at starfleet officers who were apparently dumb enough to meet in a room easily assaulted. (Then somehow there's always a rope in every room whenever a character needs it). Then he + Show Spoiler + takes out a whole squadron of Klingons (more like zerglings) by just firing around for a while. Don't mistake this for anything that bolsters his character as skilled or strong. He was never really in danger, never really had to be clever or nefarious. He isn't even superficially menacing; he's skinny and lanky, pale and wears some interpretive dance outfit. Through most of the movie he's just pretending to be bad-ass, as if he really does have some kind of power up his sleeve. Then through no skill or guile or wit of his own he + Show Spoiler +escapes from the prison only to the credit of Kirk's stupidity (someone else being awful doesn't make Khan great in some way . I don't know, I could go on and on but I don't want to give you some long annoying rant. I just didn't feel like he was a villainous character. Well the landing party took quite a beating from the Klingons while Khan had no problem in the slightest. I don't know why I would mistake that as skilled b/c the whole setup was designed to show that he indeed is skilled.
He also designed the dreadnought that would take out the enterprise w/o any problems.
|
On June 04 2013 22:21 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 21:19 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 04 2013 20:53 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe. Bombing a place then attacking another place is character development? Well, maybe character development isn't the right word to use, but the complaint is that he wasn't menacing enough: On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: I understand this was supposed to be the beginning of their meeting and that's what I mean. Its pathetic The origin story in this movie is virtually nonexistent in all forms. You're not given any reason to think he's vastly superior to our heroes and thus is an incredibly difficult foe to overcome. You're not given any drama like betrayal of a crewmember during Khan's conquest, you're not given lengthy torture scenes where Khan has almost total power and is going about getting what he wants. Without all of these sorts of scenes (and this isn't even Wrath I've referred to, its just the original episode meeting), the Khan character simply does not exist.
Well it's true. All you're given is that he stole a bunch of weapons, blew up a place and fired for what seemed to take hours at starfleet officers who were apparently dumb enough to meet in a room easily assaulted. (Then somehow there's always a rope in every room whenever a character needs it). Then he + Show Spoiler + takes out a whole squadron of Klingons (more like zerglings) by just firing around for a while. Don't mistake this for anything that bolsters his character as skilled or strong. He was never really in danger, never really had to be clever or nefarious. He isn't even superficially menacing; he's skinny and lanky, pale and wears some interpretive dance outfit. Through most of the movie he's just pretending to be bad-ass, as if he really does have some kind of power up his sleeve. Then through no skill or guile or wit of his own he + Show Spoiler +escapes from the prison only to the credit of Kirk's stupidity (someone else being awful doesn't make Khan great in some way . I don't know, I could go on and on but I don't want to give you some long annoying rant. I just didn't feel like he was a villainous character. Well the landing party took quite a beating from the Klingons while Khan had no problem in the slightest. I don't know why I would mistake that as skilled b/c the whole setup was designed to show that he indeed is skilled. He also designed the dreadnought that would take out the enterprise w/o any problems.
Sorry but this is not the case. The biggest complaint out on all forums and throughout the Star Trek community is in fact that Khan had NO setup and therefore ended up being nothing more than a generic villain. You and several others in this thread have struggled to no avail to explain it because they actually have to do research and look up all this stuff themselves. That's the whole point that you're missing. The movie had none of this. Its by far the single most vague "beginning" story ever.
Gunning a bunch of aliens down does nothing. Once again, I must reference Heath Ledger's wonderful portraying of the Joker in Batman. He made you feel that "something wasn't quite right" while making very recognizable points and memorable quotes that truly developed the Joker as an insane killing genius. He made you wonder "well shit how the fuck do you even survive against him much less beat his intellect?" This is the core of the Khan character as well. It should've shown his whole grandiose plan to take out starfleet or something. The origin scenes and story were absent and really were necessary to set him up properly.
I don't need space seeds, but the episode set up the whole Wrath of Khan story and this completely pales in comparison to the picture painted by the combination of the OST episode + WoK movie. The very fact you're having to do such extensive research and grasping for anything they gave you as to how the hell he came to be should cue you in that this is no more than a very elementary story with terrible plot holes and huge gaping problems that any "good" movie has as part of its base, but that this production struggled to produce at all. You probably did more research trying to explain their story to me than they did researching during the writing process judging from the final product.
|
I think youre very wrong. Probably the whole theatre looked at each other when Khan took out the landing party alone. Even i looked to my sides like ....did we see this happen right now ? Khan was portrayed almost like Neo in the movie. He has superstrength, superspeed, incredibly intelligent. Basicly he is perfect.
Its very rare i like a villain unless they have done something truly special, Khan was special. I can guarantee you that 99% of the people that loved this movie will say it was cause of Khan. He stole the show.
|
On June 05 2013 00:44 Avean wrote: I think youre very wrong. Probably the whole theatre looked at each other when Khan took out the landing party alone. Even i looked to my sides like ....did we see this happen right now ? Khan was portrayed almost like Neo in the movie. He has superstrength, superspeed, incredibly intelligent. Basicly he is perfect.
Its very rare i like a villain unless they have done something truly special, Khan was special. I can guarantee you that 99% of the people that loved this movie will say it was cause of Khan. He stole the show.
What you wrote there doesn't happen in real life for anything short of Heath Ledger's Joker. Nobody looked around and marveled at Khan's brilliance because if they did, it means they admittedly fabricate entire stories and details that don't exist in their heads. What you stated there sounds like a poorly-written movie scene in and of itself and certainly has no basis in a film as unremarkable as this.
Khan was bland and generic in every sense. Possession and adherence to basic knowledge of writing skills and storytelling formats basically is what prevents the people who didn't like this from liking it
|
Khan was so badass in this
I loved how they introduced him. My wife and I just looked at each other like wow!
|
On June 05 2013 00:34 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 22:21 Hryul wrote:On June 04 2013 21:19 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 04 2013 20:53 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe. Bombing a place then attacking another place is character development? Well, maybe character development isn't the right word to use, but the complaint is that he wasn't menacing enough: On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: I understand this was supposed to be the beginning of their meeting and that's what I mean. Its pathetic The origin story in this movie is virtually nonexistent in all forms. You're not given any reason to think he's vastly superior to our heroes and thus is an incredibly difficult foe to overcome. You're not given any drama like betrayal of a crewmember during Khan's conquest, you're not given lengthy torture scenes where Khan has almost total power and is going about getting what he wants. Without all of these sorts of scenes (and this isn't even Wrath I've referred to, its just the original episode meeting), the Khan character simply does not exist.
Well it's true. All you're given is that he stole a bunch of weapons, blew up a place and fired for what seemed to take hours at starfleet officers who were apparently dumb enough to meet in a room easily assaulted. (Then somehow there's always a rope in every room whenever a character needs it). Then he + Show Spoiler + takes out a whole squadron of Klingons (more like zerglings) by just firing around for a while. Don't mistake this for anything that bolsters his character as skilled or strong. He was never really in danger, never really had to be clever or nefarious. He isn't even superficially menacing; he's skinny and lanky, pale and wears some interpretive dance outfit. Through most of the movie he's just pretending to be bad-ass, as if he really does have some kind of power up his sleeve. Then through no skill or guile or wit of his own he + Show Spoiler +escapes from the prison only to the credit of Kirk's stupidity (someone else being awful doesn't make Khan great in some way . I don't know, I could go on and on but I don't want to give you some long annoying rant. I just didn't feel like he was a villainous character. Well the landing party took quite a beating from the Klingons while Khan had no problem in the slightest. I don't know why I would mistake that as skilled b/c the whole setup was designed to show that he indeed is skilled. He also designed the dreadnought that would take out the enterprise w/o any problems. Sorry but this is not the case. The biggest complaint out on all forums and throughout the Star Trek community is in fact that Khan had NO setup and therefore ended up being nothing more than a generic villain. You and several others in this thread have struggled to no avail to explain it because they actually have to do research and look up all this stuff themselves. That's the whole point that you're missing. The movie had none of this. Its by far the single most vague "beginning" story ever. Gunning a bunch of aliens down does nothing. Once again, I must reference Heath Ledger's wonderful portraying of the Joker in Batman. He made you feel that "something wasn't quite right" while making very recognizable points and memorable quotes that truly developed the Joker as an insane killing genius. He made you wonder "well shit how the fuck do you even survive against him much less beat his intellect?" This is the core of the Khan character as well. It should've shown his whole grandiose plan to take out starfleet or something. The origin scenes and story were absent and really were necessary to set him up properly. I don't need space seeds, but the episode set up the whole Wrath of Khan story and this completely pales in comparison to the picture painted by the combination of the OST episode + WoK movie. The very fact you're having to do such extensive research and grasping for anything they gave you as to how the hell he came to be should cue you in that this is no more than a very elementary story with terrible plot holes and huge gaping problems that any "good" movie has as part of its base, but that this production struggled to produce at all. You probably did more research trying to explain their story to me than they did researching during the writing process judging from the final product. The only research I had to do was to look up the years of interest. Everything else came from my memory. I give you that the writing could have been better but to say that there was no background explanation at all is plain and simple wrong. It was scarce and done fast but it defenitely was there. Also don't try to dodge the other post were it becomes quite clear that you confuse Carol and Alexander Marcus.
So it became clear that you like Wrath of Khan and the Joker but don't like Into Darkness. Why do you insist on a plothole that isn't there and rather focus on real plotholes?
|
Saw it last night. That kind of lens flare abuse should be an arrestable offence, but otherwise I thought it was pretty good.
New Khan doesn't hold a candle to old Khan, but who really thought he would?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Sometimes I get the feeling that hardcore Star Trek fans are impossible to please.
|
On June 05 2013 01:39 LegalLord wrote: Sometimes I get the feeling that hardcore Star Trek fans are impossible to please. I just think that among all people there is a group of nay-sayers who will critizise everything new you give them unless it is the joker. Take as an example the really underrated "phantom menace". . .
+ Show Spoiler +Yes i know irony doesn't work out well on the internet.
|
On June 05 2013 01:34 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 00:34 sCCrooked wrote:On June 04 2013 22:21 Hryul wrote:On June 04 2013 21:19 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 04 2013 20:53 Roe wrote:On June 04 2013 20:49 paralleluniverse wrote: I saw the movie today. I haven't watched any of the original Star Trek movies, but I thought this was awesome. I also don't see the complaint that Khan wasn't developed enough. He bombed a Starfleet facility and then attacked the headquarters in the first part of the movie. I also don't see why people are talking about inconsistencies with the original version of the character. Why does that even matter given that the reboot is set in an alternate universe. Bombing a place then attacking another place is character development? Well, maybe character development isn't the right word to use, but the complaint is that he wasn't menacing enough: On June 04 2013 08:05 sCCrooked wrote: I understand this was supposed to be the beginning of their meeting and that's what I mean. Its pathetic The origin story in this movie is virtually nonexistent in all forms. You're not given any reason to think he's vastly superior to our heroes and thus is an incredibly difficult foe to overcome. You're not given any drama like betrayal of a crewmember during Khan's conquest, you're not given lengthy torture scenes where Khan has almost total power and is going about getting what he wants. Without all of these sorts of scenes (and this isn't even Wrath I've referred to, its just the original episode meeting), the Khan character simply does not exist.
Well it's true. All you're given is that he stole a bunch of weapons, blew up a place and fired for what seemed to take hours at starfleet officers who were apparently dumb enough to meet in a room easily assaulted. (Then somehow there's always a rope in every room whenever a character needs it). Then he + Show Spoiler + takes out a whole squadron of Klingons (more like zerglings) by just firing around for a while. Don't mistake this for anything that bolsters his character as skilled or strong. He was never really in danger, never really had to be clever or nefarious. He isn't even superficially menacing; he's skinny and lanky, pale and wears some interpretive dance outfit. Through most of the movie he's just pretending to be bad-ass, as if he really does have some kind of power up his sleeve. Then through no skill or guile or wit of his own he + Show Spoiler +escapes from the prison only to the credit of Kirk's stupidity (someone else being awful doesn't make Khan great in some way . I don't know, I could go on and on but I don't want to give you some long annoying rant. I just didn't feel like he was a villainous character. Well the landing party took quite a beating from the Klingons while Khan had no problem in the slightest. I don't know why I would mistake that as skilled b/c the whole setup was designed to show that he indeed is skilled. He also designed the dreadnought that would take out the enterprise w/o any problems. Sorry but this is not the case. The biggest complaint out on all forums and throughout the Star Trek community is in fact that Khan had NO setup and therefore ended up being nothing more than a generic villain. You and several others in this thread have struggled to no avail to explain it because they actually have to do research and look up all this stuff themselves. That's the whole point that you're missing. The movie had none of this. Its by far the single most vague "beginning" story ever. Gunning a bunch of aliens down does nothing. Once again, I must reference Heath Ledger's wonderful portraying of the Joker in Batman. He made you feel that "something wasn't quite right" while making very recognizable points and memorable quotes that truly developed the Joker as an insane killing genius. He made you wonder "well shit how the fuck do you even survive against him much less beat his intellect?" This is the core of the Khan character as well. It should've shown his whole grandiose plan to take out starfleet or something. The origin scenes and story were absent and really were necessary to set him up properly. I don't need space seeds, but the episode set up the whole Wrath of Khan story and this completely pales in comparison to the picture painted by the combination of the OST episode + WoK movie. The very fact you're having to do such extensive research and grasping for anything they gave you as to how the hell he came to be should cue you in that this is no more than a very elementary story with terrible plot holes and huge gaping problems that any "good" movie has as part of its base, but that this production struggled to produce at all. You probably did more research trying to explain their story to me than they did researching during the writing process judging from the final product. The only research I had to do was to look up the years of interest. Everything else came from my memory. I give you that the writing could have been better but to say that there was no background explanation at all is plain and simple wrong. It was scarce and done fast but it defenitely was there. Also don't try to dodge the other post were it becomes quite clear that you confuse Carol and Alexander Marcus. So it became clear that you like Wrath of Khan and the Joker but don't like Into Darkness. Why do you insist on a plothole that isn't there and rather focus on real plotholes?
Its not insisting on one that isn't there. Its by far the most unexplainable hole in the entire story. I didn't confuse the Marcus's but you apparently don't know the original storyline where the Marcus family weren't weapons dealers. You may want to research more before you have this discussion with me because my nerd-hours spent on Star Trek storylines are obviously far more extensive.
A 'vague and incredibly short' intro was there, but I guess that's where our standards differ. I prefer a full story as opposed to vague details. Its fine you accept less, but my standards are simply higher. I hold large productions accountable for certain standards since they have the big bucks, but once again that's just a preference I have since I've been a part of the cinema industry for years. I work on these things so yeah I have a personal bias I suppose.
You can act like the timeline change somehow made this make sense, but that's no different than the people who think the Earth is flat or that God and Final Judgement are coming. I mean did anyone else notice the Klingons are significantly different for no apparent reason? What did the temporal anomaly cause their thousands of years of genetic evolution to change too?
All in all, I liked the movie as a movie but it won't get a huge raving "OMG BEST THING EVAR" from me or anyone else with high standards. I liked 2009 Star Trek as well but it will never compare to the older ones in terms of writing and story-telling. I mean ffs Chekov and McCoy are practically gone from the cast except to quickly throw in a quick nostalgic line here and there.
|
i'm going to have dinner but please elaborate in detail what you think is this big glaring plothole that your years of experience in the movie industry showed you? Especially what should Carol Marcus be/not be and how is it a problem with the newly created timeline? Same for Khan.
I'm just asking this for those of us, like me, don't have this in detail experience in the movie industry and thus a viewing standard like flat-earth-theorists.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On June 05 2013 01:43 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 01:39 LegalLord wrote: Sometimes I get the feeling that hardcore Star Trek fans are impossible to please. I just think that among all people there is a group of nay-sayers who will critizise everything new you give them unless it is the joker. Take as an example the really underrated "phantom menace". . . + Show Spoiler +Yes i know irony doesn't work out well on the internet. FWIW, The Phantom Menace IS underrated.
It's a mediocre film, but it gets treated as if it's the worst movie ever created - C&C4 in its degree of disappointment.
|
|
|
|